Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

8th Battalion the Light Infantry

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of 8th Battalion the Light Infantry.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The 8th Battalion the Light Infantry will begin to re-role as a national defence reconnaissance regiment in the Royal Armoured Corps from 1 April 1995. The battalion looks forward to its new role with enthusiasm.

Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that the 8th Battalion the Light Infantry is a direct descendant of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, which has a 200-year history in Yorkshire and which is one of the fundamental regiments ever formed in Yorkshire? Does he accept that the proposed change is not in the best interests of that Yorkshire regiment? Will he assure me that the cap badge will not change, and that the role of an infantry division will be maintained?
Twenty-four thousand men were recruited to, and fought in, the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry in the first world war, in which 10,000 lost their lives, and eight Victoria Crosses were awarded to its men. Will the Minister assure me that that battalion will not be lost to Yorkshire?

Mr. Soames: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the heirs and inheritors of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, one of the proudest regiments in the British Army. Indeed, many streets in Yorkshire are named after its Victoria Cross winners.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he wants. The regiment is re-roling and it is looking forward to its new role with enthusiasm. I have a letter from its colonel, informing me how much members of the regiment look forward to their new role.
There is, naturally, anxiety about the new cap badge. Discussions are taking place between the regiment, the director of infantry and the director of the Royal Armoured Corps. It is likely that the new cap badge will incorporate elements of the old 8th Light Infantry badge, reflecting the regiment's heritage, and a Royal Armoured Corps symbol.
All the proposals will be put to the executive committee of the Army board and will ultimately require the final approval of the sovereign.

Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have had one or two discussions on this matter in recent months. The regiment accepts the re-roling, but many of us would like its great tradition, together with the cap badge, to continue.

Mr. Soames: I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend for her vigorous lobbying of Ministers on behalf of the regiment. I assure her that the regiment will have every opportunity to ensure that it retains its battle honours and its important regimental distinctions, which, rightly, are the source of great pride and pleasure to all the people of Yorkshire.

Attack Helicopters

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the position on the future attack helicopter needs of the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): My Department is evaluating tenders to meet the Army's requirement for an attack helicopter. We hope to make a decision on the purchase of that equipment before the summer recess.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. He is well aware that many thousands of my constituents work at British Aerospace Warton, which is one of the bases that is heavily involved in the British Aerospace bid for the attack helicopter. I hope that he will be able to reassure my constituents that British Aerospace's bid will be seriously considered when future provision of RAF attack helicopters is considered, as it is obviously an excellent product.

Mr. Freeman: I can give that assurance. Our four criteria in taking a decision about the attack helicopter are, first, whether the bid meets the operational requirements of the Army Air Corps; secondly, the cost—whether it represents good value for money; thirdly, the impact on the United Kingdom defence industrial base, including employment, for example, at British Aerospace; and, finally, the risks involved in further development.

Mr. Martlew: As the question refers to helicopters for the RAF, will the Minister say whether progress has been made in ordering the utility helicopter for the RAF because it is now nearly a decade since the Government promised to buy it? Is the Minister aware that the job security of employees at Westland in Yeovil depends on his placing an order for the EH101?

Mr. Freeman: That is well understood. We have made substantial progress in negotiations with Westland and Boeing and expect to make an announcement shortly. The importance of an indigenous UK helicopter manufacturing company is of direct relevance, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it plain that our preference is for a mixed fleet order, but not at any cost. We expect to reach a decision soon.

Sir Jim Spicer: Most hon. Members will be reassured by my right hon. Friend's statement that the order will be


decided not on price alone but on the quality of the product. May I make a plea that, if he is looking for a quality product and to ensure employment, he must look to Westland's involvement in an attack helicopter order, which would meet the requirements of the Army extremely well?

Mr. Freeman: Westland's contribution to an order for one of the attack helicopter contenders—the Apache—would be relatively modest compared with the contribution that it would make, for example, to a support helicopter order. The programme for the Merlin version, which is for anti-submarine warfare, is going extremely well and Westland is to be congratulated on its achievements.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will put in the Library copies of the advice that Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson received from those responsible for the maintenance of official residences in Her Majesty's Government in relation to his official residence.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have already placed in the Library a full report on the outcome of investigations into expenditure on official service residences, including the last two residences occupied by Air Chief Marshal Wilson. I do not propose to publish any further documents.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps Sir Sandy Wilson has been a victim of the system.

Mr. Rifkind: There is no question of anyone being a victim of the system. All members of the services carry responsibility for their actions, including their judgment. These matters have been investigated fully and I can add nothing to what I have already said.

Mr. Wilkinson: In reaching his decision, did my right hon. and learned Friend take into account the precedent that he would set in forcing that very senior officer to retire prematurely? Was he conscious of the fact that there were no official guidelines against which such expenditure could be judged, and that the Air Chief Marshal had not broken the Queen's regulations or, according to my right hon. and learned Friend, acted improperly? How did my right hon. and learned Friend compare the expenditure on Air house, Rheindahlen and Haymes Garth against the £700,000 spent on the Bois de Mai residence of the chairman of the military committee of NATO or the £400,000 spent on the residence of the Commander Allied Forces North West Europe in High Wycombe?

Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend knows, the properties to which he referred were all the subject of an internal audit, which concluded that there was no cause for substantial concern, except with regard to certain Royal Air Force residences. In that light, further examination was made of those matters. Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson decided that he should seek early retirement and I do not disagree with his conclusion. The service that he has given the Royal Air Force, including the continuing service that he will give until he retires this July, will have been of a high order with regard to his operational responsibilities.

Dr. David Clark: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that the manner in which he scooted out of London on the morning of Sir Sandy Wilson's sacking, thus refusing to make a statement to the House, did neither his great office nor himself any credit? Having spent £100,000 of public money on a consultant's report, will he make the full report available to hon. Members in the House of Commons Library and confirm that Sir Sandy Wilson was not the chief budget holder for Haymes Garth?

Mr. Rifkind: Sir Sandy Wilson was not the chief budget holder for Haymes Garth. However, he was the chief budget holder, with full budgetary responsibility, for Air house—the house that he occupied previously, which also formed part of the investigations.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will be interested to know that the relevant papers to which he referred have been made available to the National Audit Office in the normal manner and, in that sense, we are pursuing procedures that the House understands fully.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unworthy nature of that reply, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

NATO

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future role he envisages for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Rifkind: NATO will remain essential to the defence and security needs of nations on both sides of the Atlantic.

Mr. Cohen: Should there not be a de-emphasising of NATO and its military mentality and a concentration on improving political and economic co-operation with America and with the whole of Europe? Is it not the secret truth that NATO Ministers and generals still think in cold war terms and regard Russia as the enemy? Are we not missing the opportunity, presented by the ending of the cold war, to scrap nuclear weapons? This Sunday marks the 25th anniversary of the signing of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Should we not use that occasion to announce huge cuts in nuclear weapon stockpiles worldwide, including those in Britain?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman, in his usual engaging manner, shows that he totally misunderstands the relevance of NATO when he talks about reducing its military identity. NATO is a military defence alliance. That is its strength and that explains why it is the most successful defence alliance in the history of the world.
We believe that NATO continues to have a crucial role to play in a very unstable Europe. Many countries are seeking to join NATO, which suggests that they believe that it has continuing relevance for the well-being of Europe and the entire western world.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would help the defence of Europe immensely if France joined NATO's integrated military structure?

Mr. Rifkind: We are pleased that France has recently edged its way back towards fuller involvement in NATO. For example, the French Defence Minister attended last


year's meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Seville. That represented a small step for mankind, but a great step for France. The French Government and the French people must now determine how much further along that road they wish to go. We will welcome any further integration of France into NATO that they deem appropriate.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I ask the Secretary of State about NATO's current role, in particular in the former Yugoslavia? The United Nations has confirmed persistent reports of large transport aircraft operating in Bosnia. Are any of those aircraft from NATO countries and are any of them breaking the arms embargo?

Mr. Rifkind: We are aware of various reports that suggest that there might have been some breaches of the no-fly zone in Bosnia, but there is little hard evidence available of the kind to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. However, NATO continues to pay close attention to the matter and it will use the surveillance aircraft available to it to identify any breaches of the no-fly zone.

National Monument (Northern Ireland)

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish a national monument in Northern Ireland to commemorate those service men and women who have lost their lives serving there.

Mr. Rifkind: The nation owes a great debt of gratitude to the security forces in Northern Ireland; this is already marked in different ways and there are no current plans to establish a national monument.

Mrs. Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while peace would be a fitting memorial to the 500 service personnel who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland—and to that end the terrorists should surrender their arms immediately—would not the erection of a national monument in the Province serve as a lasting tribute to them? Furthermore, does he accept that any appeasement of the Irish Republican Army in pursuing a nationalist agenda would betray that sacrifice and would perhaps lead to the break up of the Union and the break out of further sectarian strife?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree very much with the feeling behind my hon. Friend's question. The main purpose of the armed forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the battle against terrorism over 25 years has been to ensure that Northern Ireland's constitutional status can never be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that they have been totally successful in that endeavour.
In respect of the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question, we take into account the fact that in the past 25 years, in addition to the 648 service men who lost their lives, the Royal Ulster Constabulary suffered 196 fatalities and some 1,846 innocent civilians were killed. Therefore, it would be felt within Northern Ireland that any commemoration of those events should pay equal attention to all who have lost their lives in the struggle against terrorism.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's tribute to those who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland, but

as there is a move to remember the civilian bomb victims of the blitz in London and a national monument to the police who have died in keeping the peace, surely such a memorial could be erected in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Government could even pledge to maintain not simply the concept of consent, but the Union for which those men gave their lives.

Mr. Rifkind: I am very sensitive to the important points that the hon. Gentleman makes. There are a number of memorials across the Province: for example, the books of remembrance at St. Anne's cathedral in Belfast and the Garrison church in Lisburn. Any further memorials require sensitive consideration and we are open to any constructive proposals that would be welcome to all those concerned.

Gulf War Syndrome

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on Gulf war syndrome.

Mr. Soames: We continue to investigate the allegations of Gulf war syndrome with scientific rigour, principally through a medical assessment programme that will be subject to independent clinical audit by the Royal College of Physicians. There remains no evidence that those who served in the Gulf conflict are suffering from a mystery illness.

Ms Eagle: Why has the Ministry been so half-hearted and slow in its response to the plight of Gulf war victims who report the appalling symptoms that we now call Gulf war syndrome? When they were called to serve their country, those service men and women were not slow and half-hearted but willing to lay down their lives. Why cannot the Minister and his Department give them the same consideration in their present plight?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is rather overdoing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] She is rather overdoing it. As she knows, we approach the matter with a sympathetic and open mind. The soundest method of assessment of all such cases is individual medical examination. We have taken steps to invite all those who think that they are suffering from any illness to come forward for the most rigorous medical examination. Their expenses will be paid, and, if they need to travel, overnight accommodation will be provided for them. So far, only 240 potential claimants have registered their intention to come forward and 105 have been examined. To secure the confidence that the House should rightly have, an independent clinical audit of the work that has been undertaken will be passed to us by the Royal College of Physicians and we shall make it available to the House.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his considered and well-balanced approach to a difficult issue. Does he agree that the only way forward is a proper medical and scientific assessment of the reported symptoms? Does he further agree that the Ministry of Defence is very well-motivated to get behind the understandable emotion and fulfil its long and well-deserved tradition of being a caring and excellent employer?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose remarks have added weight, as he himself was in the place of honour. He is quite right to mark down the Ministry of


Defence as an extremely caring and sympathetic employer. The health and welfare of our service men and women is, and always will be, of prime importance to us. I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that the matter will be approached with great care, great sympathy and an open mind.

Dr. David Clark: Do the Government still believe that the pattern and prevalence of illnesses suffered by Gulf war veterans is no different from that experienced among the 18 to 40 age group of the general population?

Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman knows, some 45,000 troops were deployed in the Gulf and, sadly, it would not be surprising if a number of years thereafter a number of them were suffering from illness of one sort or another. A number of the people who have approached us are ill. They have been examined and, as I have said, to date we have found absolutely no medical or scientific evidence to support the allegation of a specific disease linked to service in the Gulf. Similar research is being conducted in the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Canada and Norway but no link has been found. As I said, we shall continue to approach the matter in an open and sympathetic manner, and we should be grateful if all those who feel that they have been made ill by service in the Gulf would come forward for a medical examination, which we would then subject to clinical audit.

Mr. Robathan: This is a very serious matter. I welcome my hon. Friend's reassurance that all cases are subject to a comprehensive medical examination. He may know that I had to endure these rather—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Robathan: It is just coming.

Madam Speaker: It should have come earlier.

Mr. Robathan: It cometh like the wind.
Is my hon. Friend aware that I endured unpleasant vaccinations for anthrax and, I think, the plague and ate NAPS—nerve agent pre-treatment sets—because I believed conditions meant that they were necessary? Will he confirm that Saddam Hussein in fact had the capability to launch chemical and bacteriological weapons against us? Does he agree that it is a great pity that some hon. Members seem determined for their own purposes to make political or publicity capital out of the issue?

Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend who is another of the hon. Members who served in the Gulf conflict. He is correct to say that the assessment at the time was that there was such a threat and it would have been criminally negligent if our soldiers and service men and women had not been provided with proper protection against it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the House's attention.

Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Chemical and Biological Defence

Establishment at Porton Down has to conduct a study on the long-term health effects of its experiments on the people involved.

Mr. Freeman: There has been no evidence over the past 40 years to suggest that service volunteers who have participated in studies at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have suffered any harm to their health. Therefore, we have no plans to conduct a study on the long-term health effects on such volunteers.

Ms Squire: Is the Minister aware that a number of ex-service men, including my constituent, Mr. Harry Hogg, were subject to horrific experiments with biological and chemical substances at Porton Down during the second world war and subsequently? Will he agree personally to investigate Mr. Hogg's case as Porton Down is trying to deny that he was ever there? Will he further agree to demonstrate the caring nature of the Ministry of Defence, as alleged by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), by establishing an independent study into the long-term health effects and by considering means of compensating those affected?

Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly look at the particular case. I am not familiar with it but, if the hon. Lady will write to me, I shall examine it specifically. About 200 service men a year volunteer at Porton Down to take part in experiments to test not only equipment to be used in war but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Armed Forces said, chemicals and medicines for use in the event of chemical and biological warfare.

Mr. Key: As the alternative motto of the CBDE is "safety first" and every procedure is subjected to ethical assessment, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the hundreds of my constituents who work there, saving thousands of lives through their work?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and certainly join him in thanking and congratulating his constituents. I also thank the service men and women who volunteer to take part in experiments at Porton Down. They have helped to ensure the safety of our armed forces.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister realise that his response to this question is as disappointing and mean as that of his fellow Minister in relation to Gulf war syndrome? When there are reports that volunteers at Porton Down have suffered from skin and eye cancer, paralysis, disorders of the ears, nose, kidneys and bladder, is the Minister really saying that it is all chance and spontaneous? Do not the Government owe it to those volunteers to ensure that there is a proper independent medical inquiry into what has happened to them? Those people volunteered not for money but to help their country and their fellow service people. Would not the best answer from the Minister be to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and set up that inquiry now?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is falling below his normal charitable standards. I specifically agreed to look at the case that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) raised. There is no evidence [Interruption.] Perhaps it does not commend itself to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do pay attention to


the facts presented. There is no evidence that any of those volunteers has suffered long-term damage to their health in the past four decades.

Medical District Hospital Units

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his decision on the locations of the new medical district hospital units.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to rationalise military hospitals.

Mr. Soames: There are no proposals to rationalise military hospitals further to the decision that I announced on 8 December last year to establish a single, tri-service core hospital with at least 375 beds in the United Kingdom at the current Royal Naval hospital at Haslar in Gosport. I expect to make an announcement shortly on the locations of the new Ministry of Defence hospital units.

Mr. Coombs: I recognise the need to reduce the medical capacity of the services as a result of other changes that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have made in recent months, but I hope that he will take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the staff of Princess Alexandra hospital at Wroughton for their excellent work over many years not only in caring for RAF personnel but many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is in his place. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will bear in mind, when making his decision about the location of future MDHUs, that the presence of an MDHU in the Swindon area will make it that much easier for the Swindon and Marlborough health trust, which serves north-east Wiltshire, to continue to provide the same excellent service in the future?

Mr. Soames: I am happy to have the opportunity to confirm everything that my hon. Friend has said and to pay tribute to the robust and vigorous lobbying that was undertaken by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on behalf of the Princess Alexandra hospital at Wroughton. It is an outstanding hospital and has served our military personnel and the wider community very well indeed. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the changes are inevitable and are the result of slimming of the forces, and the requirement to deal with our medical requirements in an assessed operational way for the 1990s. I endorse his views about the Princess Margaret hospital in Swindon. I am not, I am afraid, yet in a position to give him a guarantee on that, but will let him know as soon as we come to a decision.

Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister satisfied that, in a worst-case scenario—for example, a rapid withdrawal from Bosnia—medical resources would be available, bearing in mind the rapid cuts that have been made in medical services over the past three or four years?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I am pleased to be able to give him an absolute assurance that resources would be available. Indeed, none of the alterations and cuts to the services has been made to do anything other than support the front line in all assessed operational scenarios for the 1990s. I am

therefore happy to give him whatever undertaking he wishes in respect of a withdrawal from Bosnia should that be necessary.

Sir Michael Grylls: When my hon. Friend considers the siting of MDHUs, will he bear in mind the possibility of siting one at Frimley Park hospital, which is a real centre of medical excellence in Surrey and is ideally suited because it is surrounded by a large number of service establishments?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who has been a doughty champion of Frimley hospital. I am afraid that we have not yet reached a conclusion. As soon as we do so—I note and am fully aware of the excellent facilities at Frimley Park hospital—we will report to the House.

RAF St. Athan

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role of RAF St. Athan and the maintenance of Tornado and other aircraft since 1983.

Mr. Freeman: RAF St. Athan provides overhaul, repair and manufacturing facilities for fixed-wing aircraft of all three services, and many of their mechanical, structural and engine components. Currently, Tornado accounts for around 48 per cent. of RAF St. Athan's work.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that work done at RAF St. Athan by the company Airwork has cost a minimum of £300 million so far in botched and damaged Tornados? Will the Ministry receive compensation from the Bricom group? Was anyone in the RAF or the Ministry directly responsible for seeing that the work was properly done, and will anyone lose his job or be admonished?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's estimate of the amount involved is wildly inaccurate. We have not yet costed the amount, and I would not be able to give the hon. Gentleman the figure if we had, because we intend to take legal proceedings against Bricom in connection with the work done by Airwork.
I am glad to say that the damage to the Tornado aircraft that has been identified is being rectified by British Aerospace, the cost being a mere fraction of the sum mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say also that RAF St. Athan won the competition for the fatigue index at No. 25—a quarter of the way through the fatigue life—to repair about 100 of the remaining Tornados. I congratulate the service men and women involved, some of whom are the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Mans: In the context of the maintenance and updating of Tornado aircraft, when will the midlife update programme be complete? Will the Minister also tell me, either today or in writing, what plans the RAF has to give the Tornado aircraft a stand-off capability?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked me about the F3 fighter aircraft, which are being repaired and maintained. My hon. Friend asks about the ground attack—the bomber version of the Tornado. I am happy to say that the midlife update programme is proceeding, is properly resourced and will extend the life of the aircraft for perhaps 15 or 20 years—


at the end of which time we shall have to consider a future offensive aircraft. I hope very much that we shall be able to collaborate in part with, perhaps, the United States in the design and development of the aircraft.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) laughs, but the procurement of new and very expensive aircraft will require us to collaborate not only with the French and Germans—and as we are doing on Eurofighter—but with the Americans.

Property Improvements

Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how property improvements are authorised in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: Within prescribed limits, authority to approve expenditure on maintenance and new construction is delegated to budget holders to exercise in accordance with the letter of delegation issued to top level budget holders by the accounting officer.

Mr. Enright: Is not the Secretary of State slightly ashamed about the fact that he threw away £100,000 that could have cured the deficiencies in two housing estates in my constituency, paying KPMG Peat Marwick to produce a report that he subsequently repressed? Is that not a typical Ministry of Defence cover-up?

Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary; the work done by KPMG Peat Marwick was of very high quality, and enabled us to bring a difficult matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the estates at Imphal barracks in York and Strensall barracks in my constituency need no improvement other than a reprieve for Strensall, which faces possible closure, and more use of the accommodation at Imphal? Will he bear in mind the concern of many people throughout Yorkshire, who want us to maintain those facilities and continue the great relationship that York has had with the Army for many years?

Mr. Rifkind: We greatly value York's relationship with the armed forces, and expect it to continue for many generations.

Recruitment Costs

Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the continuing cost of recruitment to the armed forces while people are being made redundant.

Mr. Soames: Recruitment to the armed forces has continued throughout the force restructuring exercise, "Options for Change", in order to maintain a balanced age and rank structure and to meet shortages in certain branches and trades.

Mr. Spellar: I am not surprised that the Minister did not give the exact figure for the costs. In the last financial year, they amounted to £100 million for recruitment and £500 million for redundancy. Is it not ludicrous to have that imbalance? When will the Government stop this absurd waste of public money?

Mr. Soames: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but, as usual, he is wrong on everything. It is not £100

million; it is £92 million. [interruption] I fully realise that £8 million here or there is nothing to the Labour party. Plainly, recruiting remains extremely important to retain the right mix of skills and expertise and a balanced age structure, without which the services would be unable to carry out their job.
As to resettlement and redundancy, the hon. Gentleman should know that 80 per cent. of the people who leave the services are in employment or in other chosen activities within three months of leaving and that 93 per cent. of them are in that position after 15 months. That money is extremely well spent and just goes to show that the armed services provide the best-trained, best-skilled and best-led work force in the land.

Mr. Viggers: In addition to the points that my hon. Friend has made, does he agree that, if recruitment were to stop, it would mean that the training establishments would be unable to maintain their proper efficiency, which demonstrates the ignorance behind the original question?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right. The question of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) was fatuous and betrayed a lack of knowledge of the position. As I have said, plainly we must retain a constant and steady inflow to ensure that we have a balanced aid structure and a balanced range of skills across the services. I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the service training centres.

Dr. Reid: Is it not amazing that, in other circumstances, when we discuss recruitment, for instance, of managers of privatised utilities, the Government tell us that the only way to recruit the right people is to pay huge wage increases? Why are the armed forces so different? Why, when we need ordinary soldiers and ratings, have the Government cut their remuneration by 15 per cent. in real terms but, when we are awash with generals and brigadiers, increased their salaries by 18 per cent. in real terms? Is it not the same old Tory story: more brass for the top brass and peanuts for the poor bloody infantry?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has more front than Brighton beach. That is a disgraceful assertion. The Conservative Government have always accepted the recommendations of the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay. They are proud of their record on service pay.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend accept that the armed forces are essentially a young organisation, and that even those of us who have expressed reservations about defence cuts fully support the view that, although people leaving the forces must be generously treated, it is essential that we maintain an on-going recruiting programme, bringing young people into the forces? The Government are absolutely right on that.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his endorsement. He is exactly right. This is all part of maintaining the skills and the broad range of age and experience that is so necessary to a professional army. My hon. Friend is probably aware that well over 30,000 personnel leave the services every year on completion of their engagements or because they have decided to take up civilian employment. Many of those people are under 30.

Royal Naval College, Greenwich

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what options he is currently considering for the future use of the Royal Naval college, Greenwich.

Mr. Soames: We are considering a number of options for the future occupancy of the Royal Naval college at Greenwich, if, following consultation, we should decide to form a joint service command and staff college at Camberley. The defence options being examined are for the home for a restructured defence school of languages or for a tri-service chaplains school.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend will know that the Royal Air Force chaplains school at Amport house already provides an ideal setting for the Royal Navy as well as for the Royal Air Force. Could not the Royal Naval college at Greenwich be used as a tri-service cadet college, where cadets of all three services could learn military science, discipline and the traditions of each service, before going to their respective establishments?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has asked a popular question and I am happy to assure him that we would not allow any proposal to go forward for Greenwich that was not entirely fitting for the future use of the Royal Naval college. I am delighted to confirm that Amport house remains very much in the frame. I hope that we will be able to reach a conclusion that I know will please him. In any event, he has until 10 March to ensure that his views are put on paper.

Mr. Raynsford: Rather than prejudging the outcome of the consultation supposedly taking place on the location for the new joint service command and staff college, will the Minister recognise that the figures published in the consultation paper are dubious and suspect and that there is a serious case for revising those figures and considering Greenwich as the best and most effective location for the college?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is fighting his corner in a robust and vigorous fashion, as he should be. Today
I signed a long letter to him which I hope sets out the answers to some of the questions that he has raised. The hon. Gentleman has asked to come to see me to discuss these matters and I shall be pleased to meet him and to hear what he has to say. I would like to straighten out one misapprehension: we have certainly not yet made up our mind and we shall not do so until we have considered all the representations and the consultation is complete.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Rail Privatisation

Ql. Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the impact of rail privatisation on the economy of the Scottish highlands and islands.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The franchising director will consult on his draft passenger service requirement for ScotRail. I am confident that the outcome will improve the quality of service enjoyed by the passenger.

Mr. Kennedy: Given the Prime Minister's recent visit to Scotland, he will be aware of the widespread concern about the future of rail services, not least the impact that

the withdrawal of sleeper services, motorail, the steam engine on the West Highland line, and so on will have on the tourist-oriented economy of the western highlands in particular. Given that degree of concern, will the Prime Minister agree to a meeting at the appropriate time to discuss this matter further?

The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, I believe strongly that rail privatisation will improve the service, not least because a privatised service will have access to new sources of funds to increase investment in the rail service.
On the hon. Gentleman's direct question, of course I would be prepared to meet him at an appropriate time, but it might be more helpful in the first instance if he were to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who will, naturally, try to assist him.

Engagements

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister recall that nearly three years ago he told the nation, "Vote Conservative on Thursday, and the recovery starts Friday"? [Interruption.] When will the recovery start for all those who have seen their real standard of living decline since then? When will it start for the people I saw in the Selly Oak jobcentre yesterday where skilled factory workers are being offered £150 a week, security guards are being offered £2.40 an hour and care assistants £2.25 an hour? When will they get the feel-good factor?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady cares to look at the published figures, she will see that we moved back into growth almost immediately after the last general election, precisely as I had forecast. If she is concerned about what is happening to the economy, she might bear in mind that it is now growing at about 4 per cent. a year, unemployment has fallen by 400,000 in the last year alone, exports have hit record levels in nine out of the last 13 months, investment is rising, manufacturing productivity is rising and, for the first time since records began, the number of people in work in manufacturing industry is rising. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell her constituents that.

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech that he made in Glasgow on Friday night to a cross-section of the Scottish business community? Does he recall that his comments were widely welcomed? Is he aware that the Scottish business community feels that a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers will cost productive jobs in Scotland and threaten the Union?

The Prime Minister: I do, indeed, recall speaking to 1,000 Scottish business men in Glasgow on Friday. I am in no doubt that they believe that a tax-raising assembly


in Scotland would not be in the interests of Scottish business, not be in the interests of Scottish prosperity and not be in the interests of future investment in Scotland. That is strongly my view. I believe that it was also theirs.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads—[Interruption.] Does he share the anger—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not barrack from sedentary positions.

Mr. Blair: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads of privatised utilities—this time, the National Grid Company—and will he at last act to stop such abuses?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do find these payments as distasteful as the right hon. Gentleman—as do, I dare say, many other people as well. Where they cannot be justified, I believe that they bring the system into disrepute. I believe that directors have a duty to consider that, and I hope that they will. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Greenbury committee is examining those matters. Its recommendations will be addressed, of course, to companies and to shareholders. When its recommendations are available, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that may require legislative back-up. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is all very time consuming.

Mr. Blair: But, Madam Speaker, he has the golden share in this company. Why will not he then use it?

The Prime Minister: There are a wide number of issues to be addressed, not just this, and the right hon. Gentleman may find it interesting to examine what they are. First, we must address how best to promote complete and open disclosure of the remuneration of directors—that is necessary so that shareholders can have the full facts—and, secondly, how to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on the performance of the company, and not provided as windfall gains. I believe that that is rightly where the greatest public concern is now concentrated. I believe that that may require stricter criteria for the price at which the shares are issued and the circumstances in which they are exercised. All those matters will need to be examined.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that it is not the job of Government to substitute their commercial judgment for that of individuals. When we have the judgment that is now being provided, we will examine it with great care.

Mr. Blair: For these privatised utilities, why will not the right hon. Gentleman use the golden share or give the regulator the power? Does he not realise that, until he acts to stop these abuses, he will be seen as a willing partner in a public scandal, where monopoly millionaires are paying themselves monopoly money?

The Prime Minister: People who have listened to these exchanges may suspect that the right hon. Gentleman had prepared that question before he had

listened to the earlier answers. If he had listened to the earlier answers, he would have known that there was no point in asking that question.

Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over the weekend about decommissioning and the surrender of arms were as welcome as they were necessary? May I encourage the Government to stick to their word on that matter, otherwise the so-called choice that the people of Northern Ireland face will not be a real choice? It will be a choice subject to blackmail, intimidation and abandonment of a community that deserves our support and protection.

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend will know, the community has had our support and protection, with a large number of troops there, for the past quarter of a century. I can tell my right hon. Friend and all right hon. and hon. Members in the House that those British troops will stay there to protect people in Northern Ireland for so long as it is necessary. My right hon. Friend need have no concern but that we will keep to the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Soley: Has the Prime Minister made up his mind yet whether he agrees with his Chancellor that monetary union is not a threat to the nation state?

The Prime Minister: I shall be addressing in detail all the matters that relate to our European position, and the right policies for this country, tomorrow. I shall do that tomorrow, and the hon. Gentleman will then be in no doubt.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Gorman: Unless my right hon. Friend has even half a mind to pull Britain out of Europe, could he explain to the House, and more particularly to the fishermen of Britain, how else they are to recover their Dover soles?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will know, since she refers to the common fisheries policy, that there would be many parts of the seas from which British fishermen would be excluded were it not for the provisions of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend and the fishing industry may not like every aspect of that policy—I am aware that they do not—but if we were to cut ourselves adrift from Europe in the way that she suggests, not just the fishing industry but a very large part of the commerce and other interests of this country would be put at risk.

Ms Glenda Jackson: As the Prime Minister has already announced one U-turn in his policy, can he confirm or deny reports in today's papers that the Government have abandoned their policy with regard to rail safety with the abandonment of automatic train protection? There has been a firm commitment to ATP by


the Government and previous Secretaries of State since 1985. Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny that it is still part of his Government's policy?

The Prime Minister: On these matters, of course, we act on the advice that we receive from the Health and Safety Commission, as we have frequently been advised to do by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have received some advice from the commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering it.

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the Belgians have recently exercised border controls in a most effective manner in relation to alleged football hooligans? Will he ensure that he lobbies Belgium hard for support in the European Union so that we can maintain adequate border controls at Dover?

The Prime Minister: I welcome the action taken by the Belgian police to ensure that tonight's game passes off without incident. I hope that the only action will be on the pitch—not off it.
With regard to my hon. Friend's second point, I have said in the past that I am determined to maintain the fair, but necessary, immigration controls at the border that we have at present, and we intend to do so.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister recall that, about a year ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced an investigation into the impact of dividend

payments on investment, but that was dropped after the intervention of Lord Hanson? Since then, investment as a proportion of gross domestic product in Britain has declined to 14.6 per cent., which is the lowest figure since the first quarter of 1955. Given that the increase in dividends since the Tories came to power is £22 billion, which is money that has been dragged away from investment, is it not time to resuscitate that investigation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would do better to see what is actually happening both to manufacturing industry and to wider investment. If he does that, he will see the growth in manufacturing industry and see that industries that were dead or dying are now strong again, and exporting. He will see that British Steel has just increased production at its Llanwern plant by 30 per cent. He will also see a motor industry which was on its knees which will be a net exporter of motor cars before too long, and he will find that this country exports fibre optics, cameras and a whole range of products that were not available some years ago, all as a result of fresh investment in this country.

Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Chester unemployment has fallen yet again? It is down by 2 per cent. on last month, by 14 per cent. on last year and by 42 per cent on eight years ago. Does he recognise the fact that, as well as inflation being at its lowest level for a generation, in Chester inward investment is at record levels and year-on-year growth is up by 4 per cent., productivity is up by 6 per cent. and exports are up by 14 per cent? To what or to whom does he attribute that encouraging state of affairs?

The Prime Minister: I am indeed encouraged by those statistics, both for Chester and for the rest of the country. It is not simply the growth, or the drop in unemployment, that is welcome. Also welcome is the fact that there is a physical growth in the number of people in employment, as well as a significant drop in the number of people who have been unemployed for a long time. I believe that that development is set to continue, and I imagine that everyone will welcome that fact.

Donaldson Report

The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): rose—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so rather quickly now?

Dr. Mawhinney: With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government's response to the report of Lord Donaldson's inquiry into the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping. The response is published today. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office. I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House for the fact that the statement will be slightly longer than is normal, but I am responding to a detailed and significant report.
When Lord Donaldson's report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", was published in May 1994, it was welcomed both within the United Kingdom and internationally. I am pleased to have this opportunity to echo my predecessor in thanking Lord Donaldson and his team for the depth and quality of their report. The Government have already accepted its broad thrust. I now go further. The Government accept 86 of the 103 recommendations. Most of the others are still being considered. There were only four recommendations that we could not accept because we decided that the action proposed was inappropriate. Our response clearly demonstrates that the Government are serious about ship safety and pollution prevention, and are serious about implementing the Donaldson report.
It is essential that those operating sub-standard ships in United Kingdom waters should be clearly identifiable. I am pleased to say that our initiative in publishing monthly lists of such ships detained in United Kingdom ports has been well received by responsible shipowners. The message is clear: sub-standard ships will be detained and information about detentions will be published.
The Government support the report's emphasis on port state control and have acted to ensure that the recommendations on improved targeting of sub-standard ships are considered by the EC and the Paris memorandum of understanding.
We undertook to consider recommendations on providing emergency towing capability. I expect a final report in June from the Coastguard Agency on the feasibility, costs and benefits of the inquiry's proposals. I also announced last December that we had accepted the Donaldson recommendation that two tugs should be stationed in the Dover strait and in the Minches to provide emergency cover this winter. Those tugs are now in place. The trial will also provide operational experience for the agency's final report.
With all-party support, the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994 is now law. That has allowed us to ratify two international conventions, one on salvage and the other on increased compensation for oil pollution. We are encouraging other states to do likewise.
At a national level, the Act extends the principle of strict liability for oil pollution in United Kingdom waters to cover spills of persistent oil from ships other than oil tankers. The problem now is to ensure that the owners of ships whose bunkers cause damage are able to pay. We

are pressing internationally for the extension of compulsory liability insurance and are considering the scope for unilateral action.
We do not want ships to be able to continue to operate anonymously off our coasts. We have been vigorous, therefore, in seeking international agreement on the mandatory fitting of transponders and we shall maintain that pressure at the International Maritime Organisation. Pending agreement on transponders, we also intend to act on Lord Donaldson's recommendation that ships should have recognition marks that are clearly visible, by presenting proposals to the next meeting of the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee.
Since last July, the Marine Safety Agency has been carrying out a programme of inspections of foreign fish factory ships—klondykers—working off the UK. Sub-standard klondykers found in port have been detained and vessels at anchor have been told that deficiencies must be put right. However, the problems and the risks remain.
The Scottish Office has brought forward proposals to improve fisheries management by limiting the number of fish transhipment licences issued to klondykers and by introducing an advance notice period for licence applications from May this year. We are considering a number of options for further action under merchant shipping powers, such as preventing loading or unloading and requiring vessels to leave our waters. They should help to ensure that klondykers meet agreed safety standards and carry adequate insurance. We shall issue a consultation paper shortly, with proposals for possible legislative action, including the extension of our powers of inspection and detention to ships in UK waters not on innocent or transit passage.
The report recommended that a statutory obligation should be placed on ports to provide adequate and convenient waste reception facilities, which should be free at the point of use. Before deciding on the form of legislation, we need to establish the scale of the problem. Those with responsibility for ports should be consulted on specific proposals. Research is already being conducted to address those issues. Results will be available soon and we expect to consult interested parties shortly thereafter.
As part of our initiative against pollution from ships, we shall also bring forward regulations defining our exclusive economic zone, which will extend our jurisdiction over pollution from ships up to 200 miles from our shores. We are considering how best to enhance surveillance and enforcement of that extended area.
The inquiry also made recommendations on responsibility for clean-up operations in harbour areas and on the coast. We shall consult interested parties on those recommendations and on possible courses of action.
We are determined to continue working towards the elimination of poor operational practices on ships. In line with Lord Donaldson's recommendations, we are strongly supporting the IMO revision of the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention, which should be completed in June. We also fully endorse the IMO's international safety management code and are encouraging its widespread use on UK ships in advance of its mandatory introduction in 1998.
The shipping industry has expressed concern about Lord Donaldson's recommendation that shipowners should pay into two funds for port state control


inspections and the UK's standing counter-pollution capacity. We have long supported the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principles, and are keen to explore new options for funding. They need to be consistent with a competitive, as well as a safe fleet. We are clear that there may be problems in seeking to establish UK funds without first seeking regional agreement. We shall work to develop funding proposals and to secure agreement on them with our regional partners, but it would not be right to close the door for ever on a unilateral approach if regional agreement cannot be secured. We intend to consult on possible regional and unilateral approaches.
I have highlighted the key elements of our response to the major issues raised by the Donaldson report. We have accepted and acted upon many more recommendations, as outlined in our detailed response, and we shall continue to take forward initiatives to implement the remaining recommendations. Lord Donaldson's report has set the agenda; we intend to follow it. My Department's Marine Safety and Coastguard Agencies will play a key role in that process. Like all sensible people, we want a safe and pollution-free marine environment.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I pay tribute to the Donaldson committee for the thorough and detailed manner in which it provides a comprehensive agenda for future action. Since only the essence of the 103 recommendations can be dealt with today, does the Secretary of State accept that today's exchanges are no substitute for a full debate?
I should like to say immediately that we welcome the Government's proposals to press for international extension of compulsory liability insurance; to require the fitting of transponders to ensure identification; to bring forward our exclusive economic zone, to extend our jurisdiction over pollution from ships; and to be ready to consider unilateral action, when regional agreement cannot he reached. What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking, however, to include the Donaldson recommendations in the draft European Union directive on port state control; to get them incorporated in the Paris memorandum of understanding; and to highlight the issues at the North sea conference in June?
On the central issue of enforcement, what action is the Secretary of State taking, via the International Maritime Organisation, to reinforce and extend port state control and, in particular, to increase detentions of unseaworthy ships and ill-trained crews in many more ports, to bring it firmly home to shipowners that it no longer pays to run unsafe ships? Since Donaldson recommends more investigations in port, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the 15 per cent. cut in his Department's Marine Safety Agency budget this year, as well as the 7 per cent. cut in the marine accident investigation branch and the 6 per cent. cut in the Coastguard Agency? Are not those cuts wholly incompatible with the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis on safety? In line with Donaldson, should not he be extending the role of the Marine Safety Agency to take over the work of some highly dubious classification societies, whose poor standards the Minister of State severely criticised only two months ago?
Since the certificates of competence issued by some flag states are widely regarded to be spurious, what action is the Secretary of State taking to remove the IMO requirement on port state inspectors to accept without question certificates issued by such flag states? In view of the poor record of flag state control in many cases, will

he support the idea of a marine safety corps, whereby developed shipping nations would make surveyors available to developing countries that lacked the necessary expertise?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to emergency towing capability, which we support in principle, but is he aware of Donaldson's key recommendation that masters, officers and crews must be able to communicate properly with each other? How is that compatible with his Department's contracting out the provision of the two emergency tugs under the control of the Coastguard Agency to a company that employs non-English-speaking Croatian crews?
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to klondykers. What action is he taking to link the issue of licences to safety and insurance criteria relating to klondykers? Is not that urgent, since Donaldson spoke of the need for a revised system of licensing to be in place this winter and the Government are manifestly behind time?
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the marine environment in high-risk areas, which Donaldson highlights. Since there is a proliferation of such special areas, how does he propose to identify them, and what will be the means of implementation?
The overriding issue of the Donaldson report is safety. Opposition Members continue to worry that the Government's philosophy of deregulation and privatisation, in cutting their own Marine Safety Agency and in delegating major responsibilities to classification societies, which are not truly independent, fails to give the overriding priority to safety that is required.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave at the beginning of his comments to my announcement about proposals on insurance on transponders and on the exclusive economic zone. He asked about the involvement of the European Union and the IMO in terms of our discussions about port state control, and I can confirm what I said in my statement—that we have already raised those issues in those forums and that we shall pursue them vigorously with our partners in those organisations, because the hon. Gentleman and I recognise that the type of changes that he and I wish to be made need to be implemented internationally, not purely domestically.
On port state control, we shall continue to carry forward the process that we initiated on the detention of ships and the publication of the names of ships that fail to meet our standards, and we shall continue to encourage other countries to follow our lead, so that gradually an understanding will develop that certain ships, and perhaps even certain flags, may give those who operate on the seas, those who wish to transport their goods by sea and those who are asked to insure those goods, pause for thought.
On efficiency savings, we always seek a proper balance between the effective discharge of the paramountcy of safety, to which both the hon. Gentleman and I adhere, and the proper use of taxpayers' money. I should have thought that that was a general principle, a general balance, that he would wish to support. I can assure him that, as we proceed with the implementation of the Donaldson proposals, the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency will play a central role.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would consider seeking broader agreement among some flag states to make available to other flag states professionally trained surveyors if they found that helpful. I am willing to consider that suggestion.
I am not sure that I have answered every question that the hon. Gentleman asked. He mentioned klondykers. They cause concern, as I said in my statement, and we shall pursue, not least by a public consultation process, the necessary steps to tackle them as effectively as all Members of the House believe that we should tackle such a threat.

Mr. David Harris: As president of the Sea Safety Group, United Kingdom, as someone who gave evidence to the Donaldson commission and also as the promoter of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, mentioned by the Secretary of State, I warmly welcome the Government's response to the comprehensive report by Lord Donaldson.
I refer to a local issue in part of my constituency: the Isles of Scilly were the scene of a major disaster—the Torrey Canyon. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be no delay in working on Lord Donaldson's proposal that the Isles of Scilly should be given extra protection, by an exclusion zone or some other means, so that there is no repetition of that dreadful accident or the risk of it happening again?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I am sure that the whole House would pay tribute to the role that he played in introducing that important piece of legislation, which, as I said in my statement, enabled us to sign two international conventions. I understand the argument that he makes, legitimately, on behalf of his constituents, and I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. James Wallace: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and positive response to Lord Donaldson's recommendations, specifically with regard to transponders insurance, and the recognition that, while international action is best, there must be a willingness to take unilateral action if the international community is too slow to react.
With regard to the publication of a monthly list of defaulting vessels, does the right hon. Gentleman concur that many of those vessels have been classified by highly reputable classification societies? How does he respond to Lord Donaldson's recommendation for tighter control of standards of classification societies?
The Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), said that measures would be in place before this season to resolve the klondykers issue. Will he guarantee that, although there will be consultation, measures will be in place before next season?
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that 85 per cent. of marine accidents are caused by human error, which puts an even greater onus on the need to promote and enforce standards of crewing: in training, language and communication? Given our country's high reputation for that, what measures is his Department taking to stem the decline in the British merchant marine? Specifically,

will he withdraw the proposal to remove the present nationality restrictions that apply to masters, chief officers and chief engineers serving on UK vessels?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, not least because he has particular cause to be distressed on behalf of his constituents as a result of the Braer tragedy, which was part of the prelude to setting up the Donaldson report.
In terms of port state controls, I had noticed, as had others, that some of the ships detained were associated with classification societies. Once a pattern is established, that may be an issue to which we shall have to return, at least for discussion. I understand the hon. Gentleman's gently presented frustration about klondykers. We all share that frustration. When we have an opportunity to take action, we do so. Speaking from memory—I hope that it does not fail me—on one occasion, no fewer than five klondykers were detained in port for various reasons. So I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that there has been an element of paralysis in dealing with that issue. However, we are constrained in the legal sense and, for that reason, I said that we would consult to see what other powers we might legitimately take, to add to the powers readily available to us.
The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the need for training. I would always wish to ensure that those involved in the dispensing of safety at sea were capable of doing the job, which relates to their ability to be trained to do the job.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: May I add my congratulations to the Government on their response to the report, and to Lord Donaldson and his commission on the thorough way in which they looked at the problem of safety at sea? As a former river pilot, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one of the most serious deficiencies of the safety at sea issue? Although it is some 16 years since I last piloted in anger, as it were, I can tell my right hon. Friend that standards of training and the competence of many of the ships that came under my control were a matter of the gravest concern then. I regard it as vital that that aspect is at the forefront of maintaining safety, not just around our coast, but internationally. Will my right hon. Friend pursue those matters with the Marine Safety Agency? Will he ensure that neither coastguard nor piloted services—two important elements in ensuring safety—are further eroded?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, to which I listened carefully, given the experience on which he draws. I offer him my assurance that we treat the matter of training seriously. He may be encouraged to know that my Department has introduced two schemes: Government assistance for training at a cost of £3.5 million this year; and the development of a certified seafarers scheme at a cost of £1.5 million this year. Since the introduction of the former scheme in 1988, some 2,650 cadets have been recruited for training and no eligible candidate has ever been refused assistance. That is a small measure of our commitment to the matter to which my hon. Friend referred.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Given my belief that tankers should be kept well away from fragile fisheries and from fishing vessels that are going about their traditional activities, I am pleased that the Minister has accepted recommendation


61, which appears on pages 34 and 35 of the report, concerning the use of the deep water route west of Barra, Uist, Harris and Lewis and the intervening islands of the Western Isles.
However, I point out to the Minister that Lord Donaldson recommended originally that the captains of such vessels should be allowed to use the Minch in exceptional weather conditions. I believe that that is wholly wrong. In heavy weather, such ships should stand well clear of such a channel: they are much safer in the deep water. Will the Minister take on board—if he will forgive the pun—my view that those ships should stick to the deep water route and not enter the Minch, even in heavy weather?

Dr. Mawhinney: I recognise the experience and expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to these matters. I pay tribute to that and to his long-standing interest in the subject. For that reason, if for no other, I shall take careful note of the point that he made.

Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend will realise that the 200-mile extension that he announced today, which requires legislative backing, will be widely welcomed by the tourist resorts that front beaches in the south and south-west and that are up-wind of the prevailing south-westerlies, which bring polluting muck ashore.
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that more than 60 per cent. of the world's shipping traffic plies its trade up and down the channel, yet, if I understand his statement correctly, it will not be covered by the regulations because it will be "in transit"?
I commend to my right hon. Friend's Department the work that Esso has done at its Fawley refinery. For safety reasons, it now makes fast a tug to every oil tanker that enters and leaves the Solent.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and I certainly note his final point. He is right to point out that the Dover straits are one of the busiest marine thoroughfares in the world. About 600 ships transverse or cross the straits each day and we must ensure that the standards that we have put in place are adhered to rigidly. I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that we will enforce those standards.

Mr. Roy Beggs: As I represent a coastal constituency and the second busiest ferry port in the United Kingdom, I offer my thanks to Lord Donaldson and I welcome the Secretary of State's response to the report.
Will the international agreement that is being sought on the mandatory fitting of transponders apply to fishing vessels as well as merchant vessels? Could not that be a means of ultimately controlling the likely invasions by our European neighbours into our fishing waters?

Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not stray into the latter part of his question. He is right to point out the importance of trying to reach international agreement about the fitting of transponders. As I have said, if it proves necessary, we shall look to unilateral action on visual identification. However, it clearly makes more sense to put in place a widespread system that is widely recognised and therefore

widely policed in countries other than Britain. We shall continue to do all that we can to persuade our partners to adopt that point of view as quickly as possible.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in conjunction with today's welcome news, his Department will ensure that the English channel remains one of the safest bodies of water in the world and that it will continue to be monitored carefully by the very good and effective coastguard service that is based in Dover? Will he also comment on the fact that the two tugs that he mentioned, which operate out of Dover port, were part of a contractual specification that was unnecessarily tightly drawn, and in consequence, foreign crews are employed and Dover port and harbour board has not had the opportunity to bid for and get that contract? Will he examine whether that contract could be respecified in future so that Dover harbour board could have every opportunity of bidding for the contract and employing British workers from Dover?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he sought at the beginning of his question and to thank him for his appreciation of the work of the tugs. He will know that the contract to which he refers applies to this winter season. I am expecting a report—probably in June—from the Coastguard Agency on whether the positioning of those tugs should be made a more permanent feature. Presumably, were that process to take place, the Coastguard Agency would have to generate a new contract. I shall ensure that, prior to the drawing up of the contract, my hon. Friend's comments are drawn to the attention of the chief executive of the agency.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that, while I welcome the moves that he has taken in recommendation 62 in relation to my constituency, there still remains the serious problem of non-accidental discharges of oil in the English channel, the Irish sea and the North sea? The Secretary of State has not accepted recommendation 22, that those areas should be designated special areas where oily wastes are not legally allowed to be discharged from vessels, which would radically improve the beaches and coastlines around the United Kingdom. Will he reconsider his decision not to accept the recommendation now, but only to consider it at this stage?

Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman made. I said at the beginning of my statement that we had accepted 86 of the 103 recommendations, vie had rejected only four and we were considering the other 13. In that spirit, I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. David Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by tourist resorts on the south coast, not least Bournemouth, which relies on attracting a great many people to our beaches, producing thousands of jobs? Further to the concerns expressed in the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), can he be more precise as to how tankers that discharge ail off our shores will be better detected in the light of his


announcement today, and can he tell us whether Donaldson gave any consideration to the development of satellite surveillance technology in that respect?

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. Friend for the point that he made. I hope that he will be encouraged to know that the current regulations have had a tightening effect on the discharge of oil over the years, so that it now constitutes only 5 per cent. of the waste that ships actually discharge at sea. He is right to point out that we need adequate surveillance arrangements. While I do not recall whether Lord Donaldson strayed into space technology, I know that we are going to stray into increasing the aerial surveillance of shipping by 25 per cent., precisely to meet the point that my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister confirm that he expects the industry to pay for these proposals under the "user pays" "polluter pays" principle? Will he state how consultation will take place and over what time scale?

Dr. Mawhinney: There were a variety of proposals in the Donaldson recommendations. Some of them will fall to Government, some to ship operators and some to port operators. We shall set out consultation documents in the normal way and provide adequate time for people to respond. However, I have not pre-determined the exact timetable. It will in part be determined by the speed and efficacy of our preliminary discussions with the industry, to shape the consultation document in the first place.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that mariners of all nations have welcomed the experimental stationing of tugs around our shores during the winter? Is he in a position to form even a preliminary view of the success of that experiment and of the longer-term possibilities of franchising and other contractual arrangements, as laid out in some of Donaldson's recommendations?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that Lord Donaldson has set not only the national agenda but, in a very real sense, the worldwide agenda. We shall seek to work in that spirit with our partners and to persuade them of the importance of his statements and recommendations.
The tugs have been welcomed and have already been useful. Speaking from memory, I think that they have been involved in monitoring something like 22 incidents since they were put in place. All that experience will help the Coastguard Agency to draw up its proposals to be submitted to me in June, as to whether we should continue that particular exercise.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am concerned that recommendation 54 still allows the masters of vessels to decide when pilotage will be necessary. Representing the port of Grangemouth, where many of the Forth ports pilots are based, and having been in their company on Friday, I know that they are also concerned about what might happen as a result. They believe that they, as the pilots, know the waters better than the masters, but the masters are not often willing to take them on board. As we know, there is one serious accident every year involving a pilot in European waters and several fatalities. They do a stalwart job. Their complaint concerns the problem of

speaking to the masters. I see that recommendation 20 is accepted only in principle, on the basis that the masters should be able to communicate with their officers and some of the officers may be expected to communicate with the crew—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must have a question.

Mr. Connarty: It is a question. The question is: cannot the Government do more in that respect because it seems to me that, by accepting the recommendation in principle, they leave open the possibility of a Tower of Babel situation on board a ship when it gets into trouble, which seems to concern the pilots greatly? If we do not come down hard and say that there must be a communication system that enables the proper running of a ship, there will never be safety in waters when crisis strikes.

Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and am not surprised that the pilots would take that view. I hope that he will accept that, when I pay tribute to the work that they do, I do so sincerely, because they provide a professional and substantial contribution to safety around our shores. Equally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the master of the vessel is in a unique and legally important position. We need to be careful, especially in the House, in seeking to adjudicate between two sets of responsibilities. On the whole, practice suggests to me that the situation is not quite as dire as one might have deduced from the hon. Gentleman's question. However, it is an important issue and it is not one from which we shall turn away.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his positive response to this full report? Will he place particular emphasis on recommendation 9 to encourage environmentally sensitive tankers, especially double-hull ones, in the calculation of port dues and on recommendation 27 to encourage reception facilities to reduce operational pollution at sea? Will he ensure that the Government continue to uphold international law and the rights of innocent passage?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. He stresses important issues, and I share his concern and his instinct on all of them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 17 May last year, at column 682 of the Official Report, I asked whether the proposals of George Livanos, the Greek shipowner, for a worldwide register of every accident were being considered. The Secretary of State's predecessor gave us to understand that they were. What progress has been made on such a register? Will the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), ask whether the Scottish Office is funding for a 10-year period—no less—the ocean floor benthic study of the consequences of what happened to the Braer?

Dr. Mawhinney: On the first question, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have heard the second question and will no doubt respond, as he has the responsibility.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that the Donaldson report is a reflection on a maritime disaster some time ago, and that Ministers must look forward if they can, to try to prevent other possible


disasters? In that context, does he agree that there is a problem in the English channel, particularly at present with Meridian Ferries, which employs Polish seafarers, undercutting British seamen? In the event of that situation becoming more explosive, as we already witnessed a fortnight ago, will he intervene to ensure that those Polish seafarers are not paid at about half the rate of British seafarers and, if necessary, replace them with people who would like a job in this country, to avert another crisis in which somebody such as Lord Donaldson would have to intervene later?

Dr. Mawhinney: Companies that are entitled under the law to trade should be permitted to do so. When others use illegal and bully-boy tactics to try to stop them, it is part of the responsibility of the Government, with their partners in the EU, to try to put in place regimes, regulations and conditions under which British companies can trade within the law. That, I would have thought, is a proposal that should have commended itself to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Denham: The Minister will be aware that a serious oil spill in the Solent would have disastrous ecological effects. Will he follow through the spirit of the Donaldson report and look at the dangers of oil pollution in the Solent, particularly from tankers visiting Fawley oil refinery, and give an assurance that he will ensure that the Marine Safety Agency does not allow standards in the tugs operating at that refinery to fall? The recent reletting of the contract led to a cut in manning levels on those tugs and gave rise to widespread local concern. Will he give me an absolute assurance that, in the spirit of the report, safety in the port will not be jeopardised by the commercial pressures coming from the refinery, and that safety levels will be maintained?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Marine Safety Agency knows that I place the highest possible emphasis on safety and on taking all foreseeable and appropriate steps to prevent pollution occurring.

Mr. Andrew Miller: May I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on the Marine Safety Agency, and the comments of the Secretary of State on the detaining of ships? In that context, I ask him specifically whether he has had any consultations with his hon. Friends in the Home Office about the implications, particularly in the context of incidents such as that on the River Andoni, which is detained in my constituency, in which 50 Nigerian seamen are pawns in a game between the creditors and the owners of the vessel. What steps has the Minister taken to protect the interests of those innocent people?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will understand that my responsibility as Secretary of State for Transport relates to the safety of the vessel. It does not relate to industrial disputes that may take place between those who are employed on the vessel and the employers. I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department remains in close touch with the Home Office on such matters.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3159) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

House of Commons (Distribution of Seats)

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make new provision for the distribution of seats at parliamentary elections.
Such matters are always of keen interest to hon. Members, and the Bill is timely for several reasons, the first of which is a practical matter. Quite simply, with 651 UK constituencies and seven more planned by the Boundary Commission, there are too many Members of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster for the facilities available. Although it is true that new buildings can be provided, they are ever further away. Although many hon. Members are known to be quick on their feet in debate, only accomplished runners such as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cambome (Mr. Coe) are quick enough to get here to the Division Lobbies consistently within eight minutes from offices in the nether regions of Millbank. The time has come to halt and reverse the inexorable growth in the number of Members of Parliament. If the United States Senate can manage with 100 members and the House of Representatives with 435, surely we could manage with fewer than 651.
My Bill is designed to reduce the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom by the application of fair and consistent principles. The opportunity to achieve that now arises, because the Pandora's box of constitutional reform has been opened by the Labour party, with its fear of the Scottish National party. A recent briefing note from the Labour party states, in plain federalist terms, that
Labour is committed to a Parliament in Scotland within a decentralised and democratic European Union.
I strongly believe that Britain's future in the European Union should be as a unitary nation state, but I think it only fair to those who believe in the Balkanisation of Britain to spell out clearly, in advance, the consequences of Labour's policies in terms of representation at Westminster.
My Bill sets out a formula to do that. It comes in two parts. The first part recognises that the inherent unfairness to England and Northern Ireland of the present arrangements cannot be sustained, irrespective of other constitutional developments. The average constituency in England consists of 69,534 electors; in Northern Ireland the figure is 67,145, but in Wales it is 58,383 and in Scotland it is only 54,741.
That is an arbitrary and outdated judgment, arising from the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958 rather than from any reasonable reflection of our times. Before the Act, there was a common electoral quota for the whole United Kingdom; so why do we not return to that eminently sensible arrangement? Are the Scots today so much more difficult to represent that they need a 27 per cent. advantage in the size of their constituencies? I suspect that the Member of Parliament's postbag from Dover is every bit as daunting as that from Dundee, that Falmouth's is as full as Falkirk's and Harrogate's as heavy as Hamilton's.
Can it be, then, that Scottish Members of Parliament are inherently less active than their English counterparts? Perish the thought. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who in an earlier manifestation bequeathed us

the West Lothian question—is one of the most active Members in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) one of the most vocal.
Is it that Scottish constituencies are more geographically challenged than English ones? I feel some sympathy in regard to the travel arrangements of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and the problems of others who represent diverse island communities should also be recognised. That aside, however, the physical size of Skipton and Ripon, and of Richmond in Yorkshire, is the same as that of most rural seats in Scotland—and how can that argument be stretched to the cities, where the bulk of the population lives?
At the last election Glasgow had a total electorate of 518,716, for which it had 11 constituencies. That is an average per constituency of 47,156. Leeds had a larger electorate, at 529,127, but only eight constituencies, with an average of 66,141 electors. Where is the justice in that? Can it be justified on historic grounds? Should former independent kingdoms be given special consideration? Here I must admit an interest: my constituency, Elmet, is an ancient kingdom. Admittedly it existed for only 60 years in the seventh century, but, as we are constantly hearing, sovereignty is an elusive and enduring concept. On a Scottish model, perhaps we should have two Members of Parliament for Elmet; attractive as the thought may be, however, I do not think that it will commend itself to the House.
My Bill therefore restores the standard electoral quota for all parts of the UK, such as we enjoyed before 1958, without any guaranteed minimum number of seats. In doing that, we should not lose the opportunity to reduce the size of Parliament. I would therefore fix the standard electoral quota for the UK at the largest present individual quota: the English figure of just over 69,000. That would have the effect of reducing the overall number of Members of Parliament from 651 to 629. Henceforth, that should be the maximum number of Members. Future increases in population should increase the standard electoral quota rather than the number of Members.
Under those proposals, the representation of England and Northern Ireland would remain unchanged. Welsh Members would be reduced from 38 to 32, and Scottish Members from 72 to 56. That removes the unfairness in our present arrangements, while providing for equal representation for equal votes.
It is not, however, the end of the matter. The second part of my proposals is an attempt to answer the West Lothian question. An hon. Member, whose strong and logical opposition to a Scottish Parliament I share, asked how, if areas of policy were devolved, he as a Scottish Member at Westminster could
be party to collective decision making on education in Accrington but be precluded from such matters in Armadale in Scotland, housing in Blackburn, Lancashire, but not Blackburn, West Lothian.
As recently as February 1992, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) took it further. He said:
Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling Scottish home affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to act as Minister of Health, administering health in England and Wales.
Quite so. The subterfuge of foisting unwanted regional assemblies on England will not make the problem go away.
There is, however, a practical solution for any part of the UK that seeks and is given an elected assembly with legislative and tax-raising powers. It is to raise that region's electoral quota by an appropriate percentage over the standard electoral quota for the UK as a whole. By way of guidance, my Bill proposes that, if the powers of such a devolved Parliament were to cover the whole range of domestic affairs, its electoral quota would be doubled, and pro rata for any lesser devolution of powers. Its duly elected Westminster Members of Parliament would then be fewer in number, but they would be free to vote on all issues and to hold all offices. We should also reduce still further the overall number of Members at Westminster, which would be a step for the better. Of course, we should have to brace ourselves for the loss of some respected colleagues who would wish, no doubt, to make their futures in Scotland.
Some people, however, would argue that the Bill would be unattractive to those who seek devolution. I respond by saying simply that the downside is not of my making. It is inherent in the concept of devolution. There is not a sustainable halfway house between a unitary UK and full independence. People who do not like the destination should not start down the slippery slope.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to oppose the Bill. There is no doubt that it is inherently anti-Scottish. As a Scots Member of this Parliament, I represent a Scottish constituency in the Parliament of a multi-national state. With the creation of a legislature in Northern Ireland, that multi-national state will be restructured—I would have thought that that was the inevitable result of the creation of a legislature in one part of the United Kingdom. In that sense alone, the Bill of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is precipitous. Change will have to take place in a careful way, based on a rigorous analysis of what is likely to happen as a result of the restructuring that follows that brave document—the framework document.
What the hon. Gentleman says about Scottish constituencies does not stand up to examination. In a multi-national state's Parliament, there must be, as it were, a conglomeration of unevenness, and constituencies where there are more electors than in others.
For a whole raft of reasons, which I do not have time to mention now—I am sure that I would earn your displeasure, Madam Speaker, if I attempted to mention them—I object to this ill-advised and unpleasant measure.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 162.

Division No. 88]
[4.24 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carttiss, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Congdon, David


Booth, Hartley
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dover, Den


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Duncan, Alan


Butcher, John
Elletson, Harold


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)





Fry, Sir Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gorst, Sir John
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tattan)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hannam, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Harris, David
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stewart, Allan


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Whitney, Ray


Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Lord, Michael



Maitland, Lady Olga
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Mr. P. Nicholls and 


Neubert, Sir Michael
Mr. J. Brazier.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Flynn, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Afton, David
Gallie, Phil


Armstrong, Hilary
George, Bruce


Austin-Walker, John
Godman, Dr Norman A


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bayley, Hugh
Graham, Thomas


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Beggs, Roy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Grocott, Bruce


Berry, Roger
Gunnell, John


Betts, Clive
Hall, Mike


Blunkett, David
Hanson, David


Bradley, Keith
Hardy, Peter


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Harvey, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Burden, Richard
Hodge, Margaret


Byers, Stephen
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Callaghan, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hutton, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Illsley, Eric


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Ingram, Adam


Chidgey, David
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clapham, Michael
Janner, Greville


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jenkin, Bernard


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clelland, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Comarty, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Colston, Jean
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cousins, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Cummings, John
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dafis, Cynog
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Denham, John
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Donohoe, Brian H
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eastern, Ken
McMaster, Gordon


Etherington, Bill
MacShane, Denis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maddock, Diana






Mahon, Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martiew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxtor, John
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stevenson, George


Milburn, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Hara, Edward
Touhig, Don


Olner, Bill
Trimble, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tyler, Paul


Patchett, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pearson, Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Powei, Ray (Ogmore)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Wise, Audrey


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Rendel, David



Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tellers for the Noes


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and 


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Andrew Miller.

Question accordingly negatived.

Points of Order

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise through you the situation facing immigration detainees at Campsfield detention centre and, in particular, the case of a young woman from the Ivory Coast who attempted to commit suicide this morning in order to stop herself being removed from this country. Is there any way in which we can insist on a Home Office Minister coming to the House to make a statement about the treatment of nearly 700 people who are in detention having committed no crime and having been charged with no offence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman. That is certainly not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Austin-Walker: It relates to the previous point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With the greatest respect, I have already ruled on that point of order. I pointed out that the Treasury Bench had heard the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and that it was not a matter for the Chair.

Social Security

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1807), dated 7th July 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on Ilth July, in the last session of Parliament, be revoked.

Mr. Lilley: This is an annual opportunity to examine the detailed orders before the House and to discuss, after some weeks of consideration, the social security statement that I made after the Budget. Some may consider this a rather routine occasion, but I believe that it is a profoundly important debate because it raises issues of immense significance socially, economically and politically.
Socially, the debate is about meeting our commitments to those in greatest need. The Government are fulfilling that obligation by uprating in full, maintaining the value of benefits, focusing help where it can do most good and improving incentives for people to help themselves out of dependency.
The debate is of profound economic importance because social security is central to the control of public spending, borrowing and taxation. Through its effect on incentives, social security influences the dynamism of our labour force.
Finally, the debate is of immense significance politically. The Government have spelt out clearly their long-term strategy for social security. Now is the opportunity for the Opposition to spell out an alternative strategy. Today will provide the crucial test of whether the Labour party is seriously interested in becoming an alternative Government or whether, as I suspect, it is still in its heart wedded to permanent opposition. Parties of government propose; parties of opposition merely oppose. The fact that the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), has ducked the debate suggests to me that Labour has nothing to propose.
The Government's strategy is crystal clear—to maintain benefits, to focus help on the neediest, to improve incentives and to encourage self-provision. We are advancing on all those fronts in today's orders. Again, we shall meet our pledges on the level of benefits. All the main social security benefits will be uprated fully in line with prices in four weeks' time. The retirement pension for a couple will increase by £2 a week, and even less

well-off pensioner couples with no other means will receive more than £100 a week plus their housing costs. The total cost of the uprating will be about £1.5 billion; that is a measure of our commitment to protecting those most in need.
Last week the Labour party endorsed the Rowntree report, which advocates uprating benefits in line with earnings. That would cost £3.3 billion, so will today's Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), come clean today? Is the Labour party committed to that extra spending, or was it simply trying to gull vulnerable people? I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman now if he wishes to set the record straight. I gather that he needs time to think about it.
When I published "The Growth of Social Security" in 1993 social security spending was expected to grow by 3.3 per cent. a year in real terms until the end of the century. Now we expect growth of only 1.3 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years, and that is expected to be followed by underlying growth of 2.1 per cent. a year until the end of the century. As a result, social security spending at the end of the century is now expected to be about £8 billion lower than we forecast when my long-term review began.
A quarter of that fall is due to the reduction in unemployment that has already occurred. Nearly a quarter is due to other improvements in the outlook. More than half the reduction—about £4 billion a year—is due to savings from policy changes as our reforms take effect. The Labour party has opposed almost every reform that we have introduced, so it is incumbent on the Labour spokesmen today to tell the House where they would find £4 billion to replace the savings, or how they would finance the shortfall.
Those extra costs would be incurred before Labour even started to finance the £7 billion required for the main proposals of the Commission on Social Justice, let alone the untold billions of pounds that it would cost to implement all the proposals in the Rowntree report, which Labour praised last week.
At the start of our long-term review of social security we analysed systematically the main areas of prospective growth. First we identified sickness, invalidity and related benefits—hence the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act and the Statutory Sick Pay Act, both passed in 1994. From April this year, by means of a more objective test of incapacity, the new incapacity benefit will focus help on those genuinely incapable of work.
One of the orders will introduce an improvement flowing from the Statutory Sick Pay Act. From April a new scheme will give all employers help if a large proportion of their work force is off sick at any one time. That will be straightforward to operate, will protect cash flow and will continue to give small businesses the lion's share of the statutory sick pay reimbursement. The new scheme has been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Trades Union Congress.
The second major area of growth in spending that we identified was help with housing costs. The amount of support for housing costs through housing benefit has more than doubled in real terms since the benefit was introduced, and is now more than £10 billion a year. That is due not only to increases in rents but to the fact that


there was a basic weakness in the system, which we have had to tackle—the open-ended commitment to pay 100 per cent. even of above-average rents.
Last November, therefore, I announced a major reform that will come into effect in October. It is a sensible reform designed to give tenants more interest in the level of rents, thus bringing pressure to bear on unreasonably high rents. We have already begun a process of informal consultation with interested parties.

Ms Glenda Jackson: If the Secretary of State believes that rents will be reduced by the exercise of pressure, why do the Government not exercise that pressure on landlords? Why does he leave it to tenants, who in many instances are vulnerable, frail and elderly, to attempt to reduce their rents?

Mr. Lilley: It is sensible that there should be a countervailing force so that people have an incentive to make a reasonable choice when faced with two properties, and to choose the less expensive of the two if one of them has a rent above the average for properties of that type in the area. We prefer to leave choice in the hands of individuals—unlike the Labour party, which prefers all choices to be made by bureaucrats and set down by law.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lilley: Of course, I always give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Graham: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that only this week a report was published about Glasgow, showing that over all the years of Conservative Government there has been an increase of 144 per cent. in the number of people who are ill and claiming benefit? Is he also aware that there are more than 30,000 homeless folk in Scotland who would desperately like to rent a home at a reasonable cost yet who, under the Conservative Government, have no chance of getting a home?

Mr. Lilley: On the contrary, we have taken great steps to increase opportunities for the homeless. The best way to make good use of taxpayers' money is to ensure that it is not spent unnecessarily on the most expensive properties, and on rents above those that the market should require to make sufficient properties available. That is what our reforms are designed to achieve.
We want to ensure that the details are properly discussed before being put into regulations, and my officials have already met representatives from the local authority associations, the Institute of Rent Officers and several other interested groups. Tomorrow we shall formally consult the Social Security Advisory Committee, which we envisage will then go out to wider public consultation.
It is important that the public's views are fed into the detail of the policy, including working up a system to give prospective tenants an idea of how much housing benefit will be payable before they sign up to a particular tenancy.
The costs of support for mortgage interest through income support have already increased rapidly from £31 million in 1978–79 to £1.1 billion last year. The system is manifestly unsatisfactory. It fails to provide comprehensive cover and protection for people who lose

their jobs; two thirds of home owners would not qualify for income support to help with their mortgage interest if they became unemployed. Our proposals are self-evidently aimed to improve that position. They will give home owners more comprehensive protection when they have difficulty paying their mortgages.
The Social Security Advisory Committee's consultation document on mortgage interest and income support, issued on 10 February, invites comments from all interested parties. Clearly we shall be interested in the results of that consultation process. We are continuing our discussions with lenders and insurers to ensure that the interface between state and private provision works well.
I am determined wherever possible to make savings without any reduction in the levels of benefits for those most in need. The area of greatest scope for saving with no direct effects on benefit levels is obviously cutting the incidence of fraud. That is why I have made attacking fraud a priority.
Our efforts to detect and stop fraud are already increasingly successful. The Benefits Agency identified and stopped fraud worth £654 million in 1993–94—17 per cent. above its target—and I have no doubt that we shall exceed the target again this year. In April the agency will begin a five-year programme of investment to switch the emphasis away from detecting fraud towards deterring fraud and preventing it from happening in the first place.
Most fraud occurs through false declarations of earnings or circumstances. So the Benefits Agency will make more checks and more home visits, and will make better use of the information already held on our computer systems to help to spot fraud. Over the next three years that should deliver substantial savings of more than £2.5 billion over and above the existing level of fraud savings. We also expect a dramatic reduction in order book and girocheque frauds by automating benefit payments at post offices. But even more important than curbing spending is checking the growth in dependency on welfare. Before my reforms began, the debate was about how to help people who are on benefit. We still aim to do that. But now we have changed the whole focus of the debate towards how to help people come off benefit and into work.
The most effective way of raising the living standards and prospects of unemployed people is by helping them to return to work. The process continues with the package that I announced last November. New measures being introduced this year meet four major objectives.
First, we are continuing to improve benefits so that people have an even greater incentive to return to work. From July 1995, the £10 longer hours premium in family credit will make full-time work more attractive for those working 30 hours or more a week. Those on housing benefit or council tax benefit will receive in full that extra £10, which will not be offset against their housing benefit or council tax liability. We expect that more than 200,000 people will benefit in 1995–96, at a cost of £345 million. In April I shall make significant enhancements to disability working allowance to help more disabled people participate in work.
Secondly, to smooth the transition from benefit to work we shall speed up the payment of family credit from April, so that people in work will get that extra help more quickly. By April 1996 we expect almost all new claims for family credit to be arranged within five working days.
Thirdly, we want to encourage employers to provide more jobs, particularly for people with few skills or who have been unemployed for a long time. Another of the orders encourages employers to take on less skilled people by reducing employers' national insurance contributions for the second year running. This April, employers' contributions will be cut by 0.6 per cent. for all employees earning less than £205 a week. That will help the employers of 6.5 million people at a cost of £235 million.
Fourthly, I am examining ways to help low-paid people in work who do not qualify for family credit because they do not have children. I shall be publishing a consultation document in the spring for a substantial pilot study of an in-work benefit for people without children.
Overall, the measures will help almost 7 million people in the coming financial year at a cost of more than £440 million. That is a significant stage in a package that will build up to a total cost of some £600 million to the taxpayer in outgoings or revenue forgone.
I also take this opportunity to discuss the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition that the Income-related Benefit Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 be revoked. The House will recall that the regulations introduced a habitual residence test into income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit schemes from 1 August last year.
When I announced the habitual residence test, the Opposition's knee-jerk reaction was to oppose it, as they do almost all measures which we introduce to focus benefits on those who are genuinely needy and fully entitled to them. The Opposition said that benefit tourism was a non-problem, and that there were at most 5,000 continental claimants a year. They said that the residence test was anti-European. Today, they appear to be reaffirming their opposition to the regulations.
Experience since the test was introduced has demonstrated that its opponents were wrong on all counts. First, immediately after I announced the test, Time Out magazine—not exactly a friend of the Government—set out to debunk the idea of benefit tourism, but instead found vivid evidence of its existence. It described someone called Diego, 26, who came from Barcelona to learn drama, but quickly learnt how to use the system as well. He said:
I shared a flat with four other Spaniards … all of them were on Income Support. I just followed their advice and did the same.
Within a month, he, too, was on income support.
Then there was Frédéric, a 28-year-old Frenchman, described by Time Out as
the stuff of which Peter Lilley's nightmares are made.
I can assure Time Out that I do not have nightmares. He said:
I came to Britain in July 1993 to learn English … I am on Income Support—£44 per week—and get my rent—£47.50 per week—paid by Housing Benefit. I also work on the side to earn enough to make a decent living. I know it is absolutely illegal. Not only that but I also get French unemployment and housing benefits. It takes a lot of concentration to dodge both systems at the same time. I am now a specialist and it is almost a full-time activity. I am well placed to compare both systems: the British system is far easier.
It was, but it is not now.
Foreign magazines also began to publish accounts because they could scarcely believe that we had ever allowed this situation to exist. They demonstrated how

easy it was for other EC nationals to abuse our system. A Spanish magazine called Tribuna describes a holiday in Britain on benefit as
a brilliant way to travel. You arrive in London one fine day, sign up at an employment office and, suddenly, money and rebates fall at your feet on a regular basis. Young Spaniards did not invent the scam but they are well known as being the most adept at taking advantage of the benefits posing as European emigrants in London.
Most EC countries were ahead of us in preventing such things from coming about. I would condemn any British citizen travelling abroad who tried to abuse any foreign benefits system just as much as I would as anyone who does it to our system. We were at fault in allowing the loophole to exist, and it was right that we closed it when we found that a minority were exploiting it.
The Opposition also stated that there very few people exploiting the system—at most, 5,000. As it has turned out, the number of continental claimants has turned out to be far larger than the Opposition's forecast. One might have expected the numbers to decline following the high-profile announcement that the door was being closed. Yet in the first six months that the test has been in operation, some 6,000 continental claimants of income support have been found to be not habitually resident here. There may be others who are claiming housing benefits.
As a result, total savings from the test are running at £30 million a year, ignoring any deterrent effect which the announcement may have had. We stopped the abuse in time. The Labour party seems to justify its opposition by synthetic concern for British citizens. They display a pseudo-nationalism that fits ill with their original complaints of discrimination. It says that it is all right to hit foreigners, but we must not in any way hit people who can claim British citizenship.
In fact, 88 per cent. of people from abroad who claim British citizenship pass the test, whereas 60 per cent. of continental claimants fail. Of those British citizens who failed, most had virtually no connection with this country. Most people would think it reasonable that they should not be entitled to benefit in this country until they have earned and paid taxes here.
I shall give examples from different parts of the country. An 18-year-old whose family emigrated to New Zealand when he was six came to this country on a return ticket paid by his father to visit his grandparents. He sought benefits, and I think it is right that he should have been refused them.
A 43-year-old who has lived her whole life with her mother in Italy has come to this country for two or three months every year for the past 10 years, and has claimed benefits in the UK. She has never worked in either country, and will no longer be entitled to benefit in this country. Do the Opposition wish to enable people like that to claim benefit?
A 20-year-old woman from the sub-continent who had never been to the United Kingdom until she arrived this year tried to claim benefit. She has never worked, knows no English and her husband lives in Saudi Arabia. Again, it is not obvious to me that we should give benefit to such people. In any case, under European Union rules we would not be entitled to discriminate on the basis of citizenship rather than residence and residence is, therefore, the basis of our test. It is similar to the basis that applies in almost all continental countries, which sensibly operate similar tests.
I challenge the Opposition to say whether they think that we should return to a position in which people coming for short stays have open-ended access to claim our benefits, when they have no commitment to this country and pay no taxes here. I believe that the British public back us to the hilt.
To return to my opening arguments, we have our priorities right. We put the interests of those in greatest need first by focusing help on them, maintaining the value of their benefits and enhancing their incentives. We put British taxpayers' interests next, by curbing excessive growth in the cost of social security, and we put their interests above those of foreign claimants, as I explained. Finally, we are putting the interests of honest claimants, who constitute the vast majority, above those of fraudsters who nonetheless cost the British taxpayer large sums of money.
Labour Members seem to oppose all those priorities. We are waiting to see whether they will come up with a coherent alternative strategy today for tackling the problems of social security. I doubt very much whether they will. That is the test that they have to pass. If they fail, the House should pass our measures with acclaim.

Mr. Keith Bradley: I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition social security team to the motions and to respond to the extraordinary performance of the Secretary of State, who seemed determined to talk about many issues that were not before the House, rather than those presented for debate. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will stick to the issues before us and will not digress far from matters that are of such note today.
I was going to say in my opening remarks that the Secretary of State had clearly described the purpose of the orders and regulations. Unfortunately, he spent little time describing what we are here to debate. They deal with important matters, however. I shall spend some time on the uprating and re-rating orders, the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1995 and the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994. The Secretary of State belatedly concentrated on the latter, which we have prayed against—it is more commonly known as the habitual residence test.
Clearly, the uprating of benefits is always welcome, but I must highlight several areas of concern. In particular, some benefits or benefit components will not be increased. As I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, those include: statutory sick pay; statutory maternity pay, which will again be frozen at £52.50; the maternity payment from the regulation-based social fund, which will again be frozen at £100; the capital limits, which will remain unchanged; and the earnings disregards, which will also remain unchanged. Perhaps the Minister could explain why those elements have not been considered for uprating.

Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party would operate all those elements? If so, would he like to know the cost and would he commit the Labour party to financing that cost?

Mr. Bradley: As we enter the next election, the Labour party will see how far the Government have shifted on

those elements and will find out what the real situation is. We will then develop our policies around the real situation. We will not do so two years before that point.
In relation to the compensatory recovery unit in Glasgow, perhaps the Minister will explain why the limit of £2,500—the cut-off point for recovery of benefit from people who have received a payment, for example, for personal injury—has also not been uprated. There is much disquiet in the House about that, especially about the fact that there is reclamation of benefit at that level. I would be grateful for any views that the Minister may have on the way in which that recovery unit is operating.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I honestly do not feel that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways. He seems to deplore the fact that certain benefits are not being uprated and he is being critical, which is fair enough if that is what he believes, but he does not want to do anything about it. Either he wants the uprating or he does not. If he does, will he be specific about his view of the cost and where that money would be found? I do not think that he can have it both ways, as he is trying to do.

Mr. Bradley: It is always interesting when the hon. Gentleman intervenes. We never get any clarity about the issues that he raises.
I stress that we believe that the limit of £2,500 placed on the compensation recovery unit should be increased. My purpose was to question the Minister on his views on the matter, but I will press on.
Another key concern, which the Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks, is the change in housing benefit. We are well aware of the more fundamental review that is taking place. I may have misheard what the Secretary of State said, but it is not the case that there is an open-ended commitment to housing benefit on rents. A mechanism is already in place by which a rent officer can intervene to ensure that a reasonable rent is charged.
More particularly at this stage, we are concerned that the Government have increased the non-dependant deduction. The rate for non-dependants with gross earnings of between £74 and £110.99 is increased from £9 to £10, while the highest deduction for gross earnings of £145 or more is increased from £25 to £30—a 20 per cent. increase. That change will clearly have a significant effect on the housing costs of those groups of people. It could be especially damaging and could affect their ability to retain accommodation.
While on the subject of housing costs, it is important to comment again on the fact that the Government intend to cut income support for mortgage interest payments for people who lose their jobs, as the Secretary of State said. We await that debate with some interest. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that there is already widespread opposition to such a measure, significantly among building societies and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Perhaps even more significantly, many Conservative Back Benchers also oppose it. If the Social Security Advisory Committee also opposes the plans, will the Secretary of State drop them and instead take measures to protect people's homes, rather than to increase the likelihood of repossession?
Two further issues of concern regarding future plans should also be highlighted. First, on the proposed imposition of a ceiling of £875 for funeral expenses from


the social fund, although we would support a proper assessment of the charges made for funerals, it is essential to ensure that the ceiling does not deny the poorest people a dignified funeral. We also want assurances that the ceiling will be uprated and will not be allowed to decline further and, in effect, to wither on the vine.
Finally, on this section, I must highlight the reduced rates of benefit that will be paid under the new incapacity benefit—something on which the Secretary of State commented. The amount of money that claimants who manage to pass the new, stricter test of incapacity receive—I stress that they must pass the test—will be substantially reduced compared with invalidity benefit. On top of that, the new benefit will he taxed, as we know.
I have raised that matter on many occasions on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I make no apology for that, and I shall continue to do so. When that benefit comes into effect, on 13 April 1995, I predict an outcry of similar proportions to that associated with the chaos surrounding the introduction of the Child Support Agency. Once again, I emphasise to Conservative Members that they have been warned about the implications of the new cuts in incapacity benefit as a result of the harsher medical test.
I shall briefly discuss the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1995. Perhaps, for this part of the debate, we should call it the memorial debate on the guaranteed minimum pension, because I suspect that this is the last time that that order will he before us.
Although, obviously, we welcome the fact that the minimum pension is to be increased, the current arrangements will be abolished under the Pension Bill currently in another place, and new arrangements substituted. However, I understand that there will not be a similar guarantee of the pension under the new arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that to the House, because many pensioners wish to ensure that there will be a guarantee in the future arrangements for pensions.
On the new habitual residence test, I shall not fall into the trap of the populism in which the Secretary of State tried to indulge during his opening remarks but shall stick to the issues before us. The Secretary of State's speech was reminiscent of his speech to the Conservative party conference in 1993, when he first expressed his determination to root out benefit tourism.
I emphasise that Labour Members have no quarrel with rooting out benefit tourism, but we are not certain that the measures before us achieve that purpose. The Government's proposals may take a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and the original objective of the habitual residence test may have been achieved at the expense of the welfare of many British and other nationals who have come to or returned to the United Kingdom to settle.
'This is not the first attempt to introduce such a test. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) undertook a similar review of the benefits system in the mid-1980s, when he was Secretary of State for Social Security, and there was at that time a similar proposal to introduce a residence test for income support, but that was rejected by the then Minister of State for Social Security. That Minister said:
we decided that a blanket test would be too rigid, too cumbersome, and perhaps too unfair … It could have excluded people such as … British citizens returning from abroad. United Kingdom citizens on work contracts returning home".

He also foresaw:
it could become an administrative nightmare … A costly administrative system would also have to be set up to deal with people who failed to qualify for benefit, yet who were in need that we would not, in practice, ignore."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 537.]
The Minister at that time was the present Prime Minister, and many people would accept the wisdom of his opinion at that time. Some would argue whether it is a Euro-sceptic or a Euro-phobic opinion, but the Secretary of State, whichever way he plays it, should reflect on that opinion in determining his current policies.
More recently, the Social Security Advisory Committee rejected the current plans. It recommended that the Government should not proceed with the introduction of the habitual residence test, on the ground that, although it might provide a solution to the problem of benefit tourism, it would have adverse consequences for many other claimants.
In practice, the test is proving arbitrary, subjective, complex and unfair. As there is no definition of habitual residence, several imprecise and, arguably, inappropriate criteria are used to establish residence. That lack of precision has made the writing of guidance for, and training of, staff extremely difficult.
Many categories of people have been caught by the test. The Secretary of State has alluded to them, but not in the way in which we would present our evidence. Those categories of people include the children of British citizens who were taken abroad by their parents who now wish to return to this country to take up their rightful citizenship; British nationals whose marriages have broken down while living abroad who want to return to Britain; and British nationals who have returned to Britain as a result of economic or political change in the country in which they have been living. In our opinion, none of those categories could be described as "benefit tourism".

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I bring to my hon. Friend's attention, and that of the House, the case of a constituent of mine, Lisa Capon of Thornton Heath. She is a British subject who, at the age of 16, went to Portugal with her parents and her husband. Six years later—a few weeks ago—she returned to this country, to my constituency, and failed the habitual residence test.
Lisa had a one-way ticket back from Portugal to this country. She is five months pregnant. She could not obtain any social security money; she failed the test. As she does not have a child, although she is pregnant, she could not obtain help from social services.
On Friday evening, on behalf of my constituent, a British citizen, I had to telephone social services' emergency number. After some arm-twisting, I was promised that a food parcel would be given—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are normally short and succinct. This is a very short debate and the hon. Gentleman has raised a question. I imagine that the spokesman for the Opposition will choose whether to reply to it.

Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend presented an example that illustrates the complex situation in which many people find themselves. I argue that the way in which the rules are interpreted and the way in which the criteria are being established mean that many people fall into similar traps.
Also affected are those families spread across different continents who make long visits abroad. That is an especially common occurrence in the ethnic minority communities, many individual members of whom may have originally come to the UK as immigrants or whose parents settled here. In Bradford, for example, many welfare rights organisations report many problems arising as a result of the test. Similarly, the Commission for Racial Equality has mentioned many aspects of the administration of the test that cause unease.
Further, the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of State for Social Security, was right to predict the immense administrative problems. Advice agencies report that a great deal of extra work has been caused as a result of the test. The Benefits Agency needs to interview many claimants in circumstances where the habitual residence test is an issue affecting entitlement.
Thousands of cases are under appeal. The Secretary of State mentioned 6,000 cases that fail the habitual residence test. I should be grateful if he would say how many of those cases are currently under appeal.

Mr. David Lidington: In view of the critique that the hon. Gentleman advanced, does he wish the habitual residence test to be abolished?

Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Gentleman will remain calm for a moment, I am sure that, by the end of my contribution, he will know what our position is.
The extra burden on offices is illustrated by the figures for interviews in one district office alone in the month of September; 934 people were interviewed, of whom 638 were refused benefit. The delays for appeal hearings are also in part a reflection of the numbers affected. It is commonplace for claimants to be forced to wait as long as six months before their cases are heard. For example, in the north Surrey area, appeals tribunals are now hearing cases that were appealed in August and September 1994.
I pay tribute to the invaluable work of the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Those organisations inform me that they understand that approximately two thirds of decisions to refuse benefit that are taken at local offices are overturned on appeal. That suggests that staff have not been properly trained, the guidance is faulty or it is simply bad law. Will the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary in winding up, comment on the position regarding refusals and appeals?
At the same time, claimants must wait a long time before a hearing without financial support, as in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), and may not be entitled even to urgent case payments because of their discretionary nature.
When rejecting a presence test in 1986, the then Minister of State for Social Security, the current Prime Minister, questioned whether such a scheme would produce net savings for the Treasury. It would be useful to know today precisely what the savings are, if any, taking account of the cost of the additional staff time spent on habitual resident test work. From my visits to local Benefits Agency offices, I know that an enormous amount of staff time is involved in that work at the expense of other essential work that Benefits Agency staff undertake.
There is not time this afternoon to go into all the legal complexities of the test. Suffice it to say that I understand that the validity of the legislation is being challenged under domestic and European law. We await the outcome of those considerations with interest. Nor is there time to go into the many case studies which have been presented to us, representing a range of problems that have been presented at hon. Members' advice bureaux.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is there time to tell us whether the hon. Gentleman would repeal the rule?

Mr. Bradley: I have been in the House long enough to have learnt not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he always makes rather limited interventions.
A range of complex cases that have been brought before us need careful consideration. However, it is clear from parliamentary answers that there is great uncertainty about who is being refused and for what reason, what the current situation on appeals is and precisely how much money is saved by that measure. We also know that great hardship is caused. In a reply dated 23 January 1995 to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Secretary of State said:
The Department is monitoring the effect of the habitual residents test on British Citizens. However, because habitual residence is assessed on the basis of a variety of factors, it is not possible to be categorical about the reasons for being turned down".
We share that view. The test should be thoroughly reviewed in the light of—

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Heald: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Motion No. 6 on the Order Paper says:
That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 … be revoked.
Is it therefore in order for the hon. Gentleman, far from asking for the regulations to be revoked, simply to say that they should be reviewed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely in order for hon. Members to take any viewpoint that they choose. It depends on their view at the time. It is certainly not a matter for the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman knows that full well.

Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the case of Pepper v. Hart in the House of Lords—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not terribly interested in what took place in the House of Lords this afternoon. We have a debate before us and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would resume his seat.

Mr. Bradley: The whole system should be thoroughly reviewed. The Government should take it away from the House and come back with a sensible system that does not involve all the contradictions and complexities that I have highlighted. That is why we shall vote against the orders.

Sir Nicholas Scott: I stand before the House as an unreformed addict, having spent seven years hooked entirely on social security. I have had a bare seven months off the habit and feel constrained to come back today to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the orders and regulations which he has placed before the House and which we are discussing. They enshrine a proper disciplined and constructive approach and a caring package for the future of social security for the coming years.
Social security is never an easy issue. Anyone who must come to grips with the conflicting measures within the social security system knows how difficult it is to reconcile those differing positions and pressures. It may be an easy matter for those who sit on the Opposition Benches, and I hope that Labour Members will continue to sit on them for a long time to come. I genuinely congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on their work. I see that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is quitting the scene. I do not wish to detain him unnecessarily. I understand the dilemma that his team must face. I am sure that he and his hon. Friends have all sorts of genuine concerns that they would like to express and grievances that they want to redress, but the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor will not allow them to say anything positive, or enter into a commitment, in terms of future social security expenditure.
Opposition Members can meet the devoted and hardworking group of people from the lobby outside the House, who have all sorts of genuine concerns in which they believe and who can come and discuss their concerns with Opposition Members. But Opposition Members can give them no commitments because the shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition will not allow them to do so. They come before the House and laud and praise the work of the Commission for Social Justice, but cannot commit themselves to any of the ideas that it has put forward because the shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition will not let them.

Mr. Donald Dewar: It is a pleasure to have the right hon. Gentleman in the Chamber agreeing with the Government, when he so manifestly did not agree with them for so long when he was in office. He properly points to the dilemmas that face any Opposition, and no doubt any Government over whom the Treasury looms so large. He mentioned unhappiness; is he entirely happy about the changes represented by the new incapacity benefit?

Sir Nicholas Scott: I shall deal with many of those matters, including incapacity benefit, in a moment or two.
I should have thought that, having been so long on that side of the House, the Opposition would by now have found some device whereby they could commit themselves to something when they discuss those matters, even though they are under the constraints that I mentioned. At present, however, the House and the country as a whole have no idea of the social security policies that Labour Members would pursue, were they by any mischance to find themselves in government. Nor have we any idea of the costs of pursuing the policies that they have in mind. In essence, they are hiding behind some sort of political yashmak, denying that the public,

despite their entreaties and desires, would like to see what goods are hidden behind it. It is about time that they begin to reveal what is on offer to people before they spend much more time criticising the constructive way in which my right hon. Friend and his team have been tackling social security problems.
Let us imagine for a moment that the hon. Member for Garscadden were given his dream and were holding the reins of power over social security. Let us enjoy the fantasy for a moment and imagine what would happen if he took over responsibility for the largest policy centre in Government. Could he cast aside his party's opposition to our sustained and responsible policy of cost containment and affordability, thus dashing the hopes and expectations of many of those in the lobby outside whom, with a nod and a whisper, a wink here and a gesture there, he has been able to persuade how different life would be under a Labour Government? If the hon. Member for Garscadden were to bow to the articulate, intelligent, persuasive, highly motivated and genuine lobby outside—who would expect him to find extra money to spend on social security—we would end up with runaway expenditure and high rates of inflation. We would be broke and subject once more to the whims and the mercies of the International Monetary Fund.
The hon. Gentleman has a real problem. He is a Scotsman and perhaps his problem is set out more clearly in what I suppose we might refer to, even in this theatre, as the Scottish play. Macbeth is challenged by his wife who says:
"Art Thou afeared
To be the same in thine own act and valour
As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,"—
the hon. Gentleman can tell us what that might be—
"And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would'.
Like the poor cat i' the adage?"
No one would accuse the hon. Gentleman or his team of cowardice, but I think that they should show the House and the country a little more nerve and candour in order to enable the electorate better to judge their intentions.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues on their notable achievement this year in sustaining the Government's commitment to uprate all the main benefits in line with inflation; yet the growth in expenditure on social security has been reduced substantially this year, and that trend will continue for the next three years.
I think that we all understand the two main reasons for that reduction. The first concerns the Government's achievements in producing low inflation and lower unemployment. Inflation is now at an historically low level that we have not seen since the early 1960s. I believe that the Government deserve immense credit for that achievement. Unemployment has been reduced by 555,000 since its peak in 1992 and it is still decreasing. Those two factors, in themselves, are good for people and for the health of society, but they also provide a background against which we can examine our social security needs.
Secondly, I believe that my right hon. Friend would acknowledge that he has built on the foundation which was laid by his predecessor, who adopted a sensible, sustained and rigorous approach to social security expenditure. I remember that when I arrived back from


Northern Ireland I was told by a senior officer of the then Department of Health and Social Security that I had a privilege unique in Government except for Treasury Ministers: I could introduce a Bill every single year. I must admit that that blessing was somewhat mixed in its application.
Over the years, billions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been saved while the Government have retained a defensible, compassionate and caring social security system. Nothing stands still in social security: if social security changes, society adapts and changes also, and the social security system must then adapt to meet those changed habits and needs. We can never say that we have the answer to meet the plethora of needs that exist in any advanced industrialised society.
As a Minister with responsibilities in the social security area, I witnessed the growth in certain aspects of social security, such as housing benefit and invalidity benefit, for quite inexplicable reasons which could not be justified by any real change in people's circumstances. It simply became fashionable to apply for certain benefits and, inevitably, it became necessary for Government to draw back and tighten the criteria of eligibility for entitlement to those benefits. That is a never-ending challenge for those who are responsible for social security in this country. We must keep provision up to date: we must meet new needs while ensuring that we continue to meet the needs of those who are in genuine distress.
I am disappointed at the low take-up of the disability working allowance. It was introduced at the same time as the disability living allowance, which has been a conspicuous success. I believe that DWA has failed to be successful in part because many disabled people who would like to work and who wish to give work a chance believe that, if they try it and fail, they will not be able to go back on to their pre-existing benefits.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), know that that is not so. However, if we could present a cast-iron, copper-bottomed guarantee that people will be able to return to their pre-existing benefits, we might be able to encourage them to take up the opportunities that are proffered by the disability working allowance.
My right hon. Friend addressed the issue of pensions very carefully in his Mais lecture. He pointed out that half the benefit expenditure is spent on the elderly in our community and that in the next century the imbalance will become even greater. As the population balance alters, there will be problems not only with the public provision of state pensions but with private provision of pensions.
We must look at other ways of encouraging the growth of personal pensions. Their growth to date has been welcome and has proved useful. We should not make a rush judgment, but it would be sensible to consider the possibility of compulsory private pension provision in the future. That may sound like a strange concept, but I believe that many people who have made proper provision for their own retirement are resentful that they must pay, through their taxation, for those who have made no such provision. That resentment will grow among the elderly and those of working age as the pressures on the cost of

retirement income increase as we move into the next century. We must consider that dilemma and begin to address it.
The price of success and responsibility in social security in any advanced country is eternal vigilance. Without it, demand can become unsustainable. A number of advanced countries have been faced with unsustainable demand and, panic stricken, have had to resile from the commitments into which they entered. It is correct for my right hon. Friend and his team to look ahead and plan for the future of social security in the next century. As I have said, society is not static; it is dynamic and volatile.
It is very easy for particular areas of expenditure to escalate out of control, and we must ensure that that does not occur. The old special payments scheme was replaced by the social fund, which proved to be a much better controlled system of meeting exceptional need. The housing benefit and invalidity benefit have had many problems. Although the new incapacity benefit will have the teething problems that are associated with any change to the system, I believe that it is a much more sensible and responsible way of tackling the needs of incapacity in our society. Mortgage interest must be examined also.
Those of us who are in charge of events should continue to proceed one step at a time. We must continue to seek a more affordable, sustainable and a better social security system than we have even now. Today's orders and regulations represent a very important step in that direction.

Ms Glenda Jackson: There is a strong theatrical tradition that it is desperately unlucky to quote from the Scottish play in any theatre where that play is not actually being performed. However, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) is in a better position than I am to know what is really going on in the Cabinet, so perhaps, in his case, lightening will not strike twice.
Let me return the Secretary of State briefly to housing benefit. He was most courteous in allowing my intervention and I took on board his point about providing citizens with choice, but many of my more elderly constituents are being denied the only choice—indeed, right—that they value, and that is the certainty that they will be allowed to live out their days in what has been their home for a considerable number of years. They are consistently concerned about year-on-year rent increases and they are in no position to look for an alternative place to live. They have no possibility of arguing the rent down with their landlords and it causes them real distress.

Mr. Lilley: Let me make it clear to the hon. Lady—I hope that it will be reassurance for her obvious concerns for her constituents—that there is no intention of applying the measure retrospectively to people already established and claiming housing benefit. It applies to new claims for housing benefit. It is obviously much easier for someone newly claiming housing benefit and having to choose where to live to decide between different premises. Those who are already retired and on housing benefit will not suddenly be deprived of a portion of their housing benefit and be required to move elsewhere.

Ms Jackson: Will the Secretary of State clarify that a little further? Does he mean that if the landlord of those


who are, and have been, in receipt of housing benefit for a number of years chooses to raise their rent year-on-year, their housing benefit will still be met in full?

Mr. Lilley: Subject to the rent not being in excess of a reasonable market rent, yes, it will.

Ms Jackson: With respect to the Secretary of State, that is absolutely the nub of the problem and precisely the reason why so many of my constituents are justifiably afraid.
There has been an increase in the number of people who buy up properties and wish their sitting tenants to leave. They want to turn them out. They wish perhaps to modernise the properties that they have bought arid they believe that there will be a higher return on their investment if they can reduce the number of flats in a house of comparatively multiple occupation. Therefore, an increasing number of my constituents who are elderly and who have lived in the same properties for a considerable number of years are undoubtedly being pressured by their landlords. In many instances, a landlord can evict tenants who have lived in a property for many years only when they can no longer pay the rent.
Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment the possibility of reintroducing some fair rents scheme? I understand that there has been no positive response to the idea, but the problem is causing real hardship and I believe that it will affect an even larger number of people.
At the moment, people are having to choose between taking a job or losing their homes and I cannot believe that the Government actually wish that to happen. In the light of the year-on-year increases in rent over the past few years, the issue really should be examined again and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could do that.
I am grateful to have been called in the debate and I am even more grateful that the habitual residence test is part of our deliberations tonight, not least on the level of obtaining some information, as I hope that we shall. Whenever I have tabled a written question to the Department of Social Security—for example, on the number of British citizens who are awaiting the results of their appeals under the test, the number of citizens of former Commonwealth countries who have applied for the test, the number of British families who are affected by the habitual residence test, the ages of children within those families and the ages of individuals who have been asked to undertake the test—the reply that I have consistently received is that no such figures are kept centrally and the cost of providing them would be prohibitive.
I find that an absolutely extraordinary response, given that, when the Secretary of State introduced what I believe to be genuinely nasty legislation in what I would also argue was an singularly nasty little speech, we were told that the habitual residence test was being introduced to close a loophole against benefits tourists attempting to perpetrate fraud against British taxpayers. However, a detailed letter that the Secretary of State sent in response to an inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), contained the following sentence:
Although immigration status has always been relevant to Income Support entitlement, the nationality of claimants from European Economic Area (EEA) states is not recorded, hence the absence of hard data.

In the speech that introduced the habitual residence test, which the Secretary of State delivered at the Conservative party conference in 1993, he depicted a crooks' tour, and the nationals whom he proceeded to insult were the citizens of Germany, France and Italy, yet it would seem that there is actually no hard evidence to support what I regard as an extremely damaging piece of legislation.
Setting aside the issues of European Union nationals who are being caught by the habitual residence tests and looking instead at benefit tourism, which was my understanding of why the test was introduced in the first place, I would be grateful to know, as I am sure would every right hon. and hon. Member, how a young British citizen, who, regrettably, at the age of 19 moved from education to the dole queue was denied any claim upon the benefits system because she was deemed to have to undergo the habitual residence test. To regard a move from education to unemployment as a tour or a journey seems absurd in the extreme.
Another example is one of my constituents, a woman in her late 40s who is a freelance journalist. She found it impossible to obtain employment in Britain, the country of her birth, so at the age of 30 she moved to Greece, where for 13 years she was successful in obtaining employment as a freelance journalist. Due to her own ill health and that of an elderly relative, she found it necessary to return to Britain. In the interim, her elderly relative died. She had already sold such property as she had in Greece—it was very small in quantity—and she arrived in Britain with no living relatives, admittedly not having lived here for 13 years, and had to undergo the habitual residence test. She was left with absolutely no means of support, given that it is taking the Benefits Agency offices in my part of north London anything up to three months to process an application and an appeal. In one absolutely shocking case involving a young pregnant woman, it took five months before any answer came.
We are denying British citizens any rights whatsoever. It is not simply the right to obtain sustenance from the benefits system; it is a denial of the most basic civil rights and liberties that people can be born British citizens, attempt—as the Government are always urging our citizens to do—to maintain themselves by employment, find that employment abroad and yet, when they return to Britain, be denied their rightful places as British citizens.
I shall deal briefly with another case in my constituency involving a citizen of the European Union who has lived and worked in this country for at least five years. Because of a downturn in his employment, he applied to the Benefits Agency. Not only did the agency insist that he undergo the habitual residence test but it asked him to produce his passport. That seems to be a gross abuse of the agency's responsibilities, and I urge the Secretary of State to re-examine what the test is supposedly doing for the citizens of this country.
I should be grateful to see the hard evidence that proves that the taxpayer is being saved money and equally grateful to see that which proves that the particular group of people that the test is seemingly targeting are exercising gross fraud on the citizens of this country.
I realise that time is short so I shall conclude by giving details of two further cases in my constituency, both involving young women. Indeed, the test impacts especially harshly on women, and that is certainly so in the two instances that I shall outline now. Both cases involve women who, for a variety of reasons, which are


no business of the House and into which we have no right to inquire, ended up abroad but in failing marriages. In one case, the woman, who is a British citizen and has a small child, had to return to this country because of the severe domestic violence that she was suffering at the hands of her now estranged husband. The other woman had to return because of a breakdown of relations between her in-laws.
In both instances, the women returned to their own country: one returned with a very small child and one was five months pregnant. They both had to undergo the habitual residence test and were denied any support for a considerable time. It was only the generosity and kindliness of friends that sustained them until the appeals found for them.
I do not know whether it was at the same Conservative party conference that the Secretary of State delivered the speech to which I referred, but I distinctly remember the Prime Minister speaking of his desire for people to be able to hand on what was their own to their own. I believe that he was referring to property rather than to citizens' rights but I think that British parents would find it deeply shocking—I know I do—if, via this nasty little test, the great gift of British citizenship and all that it entails were to be denied to their children and grandchildren.

Mr. Peter Luff: I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for the fact that I shall not be able to stay long after I have made my speech as I have a long-standing engagement elsewhere. I pay tribute to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) which he made with the elegance and compassion that are characteristic of his whole political career.
Let me put my remarks in context. The House is aware that it is estimated that the social security system will cost some £84 billion for the current year which, I am told, works out at about £15 per working person per day. That is a huge sum of money. Even after the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put in place, it is planned that in real terms the social security budget should grow by some 2.1 per cent. a year in future. That is a huge rate of growth on a huge sum of money, and it is important that we bear that in mind as we consider all the many difficult choices that Ministers have to make.
The central question is whether it is right that the bulk of social security benefits should be uplifted only by price inflation, not linked to earnings, as the recent report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation sought to suggest. It might help the House if I quoted the JRF summary. It states:
More people became dependent on benefits like Income Support as a result of both higher unemployment and demographic factors.
I think that we can accept that. It continued:
The income gap widened between those dependent on benefits and those with earnings.
We can also accept that as a factual statement. It then went on to state:
Since the early 1980s, benefit levels have generally been linked to prices, so that the incomes of those dependent on benefits have fallen behind the working population.

It now becomes more tendentious by stating:
Those remaining dependent on price-linked benefits have little or no stake in the prosperity of the country, since rising real incomes in general have no effect on their own standard of living.
Here, I believe, the foundation is straying into dangerous territory. It concludes:
While the priority has to be to ensure that, where possible, people do not remain dependent on benefits, there will remain groups who do so. In such cases, indefinite price indexation is not adequate, and their benefits should increase by more than inflation at times when living standards in general are rising.
Superficially, that seems a plausible analysis, but the foundation's inquiry has missed one crucial point, which is that the incomes of the poorest members of our society depend not only on cash benefits from the state but on a range of benefits in kind that they receive from the state. In this respect, the poorest members of society do disproportionately well.
What are these benefits in kind, these social transfers funded by the taxpayer? I am thinking of things such as the national health service, education, housing and public transport subsidies, welfare milk and free school meals. All these must be taken into account when working out the real net incomes of every member of society. There have been huge increases in benefits in kind during the lifetime of this Government. When judging whether price indexation is the appropriate measure for setting social security benefits, we must take them all into account.
I am glad that the Social Market Foundation has studied the matter in detail. A recent report by Andrew Cooper and Roderick Nye sheds a great deal of light on the subject. They conclude that
in 1993 the poorest fifth of UK households gained an estimated £3,610 from state benefits in kind, £1,530 more than the wealthiest fifth … By ignoring benefits in kind the Inquiry"—
the JRF study—
paints an incomplete picture about the way Britain's poorest are faring. By confining itself to cash benefits and income the Report's conclusion is little more than a function of the linkage of benefits to prices instead of earnings, a change offset by the increase in real spending of public services represented by benefits in kind.
They state that the inquiry's failure to include this in its calculations
can only be sustained by ignoring what is currently 48.3 per cent. of the final income of Britain's poorest households.
Nearly half their income is from benefits in kind. They continue:
the Inquiry is borne out of a consensus which regards maintaining and increasing expenditure on public services like education and the NHS as vital to preserving living standards, yet when the most comprehensive study of its kind into Income and Wealth is conducted these figures are excluded.
By excluding such important considerations, the central finding of the JRF inquiry—that benefits should be linked to earnings rather than prices—has been invalidated.
Health expenditure has risen from 4.7 per cent. of gross domestic product when the Conservatives came to power to 6 per cent. of GDP now. That is a huge increase which disproportionately benefits the poorest members of society. Education expenditure, which is at present the subject of much controversy, has risen by 50 per cent. per pupil in real terms since the Government took office. These factors must be weighed in the balance when we consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1995.
I accept that there are problems with poverty, as the JRF report said. They are often heavily localised and, I believe, best addressed by local regeneration measures. The work of English Partnerships, for example, is crucial in this respect. I accept that inequality in our society has increased, but, unlike the JRF inquiry, I do not accept that that is automatically a bad thing. Some measure of inequality is essential as an engine of economic growth and enterprise.
I believe that, theoretically, indexation to prices alone might have an adverse impact on the incomes of the poorest, but, looking at the broader picture, that is clearly not the case. The problem of growing inequality in our society and the problems of the poorest 10 per cent. about which the pessimistic talk a great deal are in reality nothing like as great as has been suggested, which is why I believe that it is absolutely right for the Government to stick to the principle of price indexation for the vast range of social security benefits.
I should like to reinforce the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea about the impact of targeting, particularly on the thrifty elderly. It sounds very good and reassuring, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, that we must focus help on the most needy, and I agree that we do, but we must recognise that the practical effect of focusing that help can all too often be to remove from benefit entitlement those who are only marginally better off than people in receipt of benefit. That leads to very real resentment, particularly among elderly people in my constituency who are not in receipt of benefits, who have made some modest provision for their old age, but who find that the couple next door, who have made no such provision, are the beneficiaries of all these state benefits. We cannot duck that issue for much longer and it is one to which I hope that my right hon. Friend will give greater attention.
On housing benefit, I believe that it is wrong to subsidise both bricks and mortar and people. If we subsidise people alone and allow rents for all forms of housing tenure to rise to something nearer market levels, it lets the market work. It will bring about the revival of the private rented sector, and that is happening thanks to the assured tenancy scheme, which all Conservative Members wish to see continue.
Housing benefit has trebled since 1979 to some £10 billion today, so it is fully understandable why the Treasury should be so concerned. I welcome the reforms that are part of the packages recently announced by my right hon. Friend. That we should have some limit on what rents in a particular area should be eligible for housing benefit seems entirely reasonable to me, as does the idea that in a household in which people are working the person in receipt of housing benefit should have a corresponding reduction in that benefit. If we cut the subsidy to the Housing Corporations and, more generally, housing benefit—which we are not currently doing—the result could be a loss of confidence in the financial institutions that go into partnership with the housing associations to fund housing, that money will be there in future to fund social housing for rent. I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at pressure from the Treasury for a more broad-based reduction in housing benefit if at the same time there are reductions in the subsidy to housing

corporations, because that could have an unfortunate impact on the housing association movement in this country.
The broad issues being discussed by the House today are right and proper. The Government are right to insist on linkage only to prices, not earnings, and I commend the orders to the House.

Ms Liz Lynne: There is a great deal for us to debate this evening. I feel that this is an awkward way to debate the orders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said at the same time last year, it is an inconvenient mix and match of orders. It is difficult to give proper consideration to them all, but it is even worse today, because there are six orders before us. The Government might be quite happy to stifle debate, particularly on the sensitive issue of the habitual residence test, and avoid debate when the order was laid before the House and became law, but we are here today to debate whether we should revoke that order. I believe that we should, as I shall explain later.
The order dealing with habitual residence tests has been tacked on to the end of five other orders, and we must get through all of them by 7 o'clock tonight. I shall deal with one order in particular—the reduction of class 2 national insurance contributions for share fishermen. That is welcome, of course, but it will not compensate for all the problems that British fishermen currently have, not least with the Spanish fishermen being allowed to fish in the Irish box.
It is right that we should debate the rise in benefits in line with inflation, but I believe that the debate should be widened. We should be talking about a fundamental review of the whole benefits system. We should be talking about trying to protect people from poverty and getting people back into work. The Government, under the reforms banner—I believe that it is a banner—are hacking away at benefit expenditure, which is storing up problems for us in the long term. All these measures should be looked at in the light of that fact.
In the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order, for instance, the amount paid into that fund in 1995–96 must not exceed 10 per cent. of the benefits expenditure. That is a reduction of £2 billion on what the Treasury was able to spend last year to top up national insurance contributions. That is partly due to the rise in national insurance contributions and the fact that benefit payments have decreased. I would welcome that if it was for the real reason of getting more people back into employment, but that is not the main issue here. The Government are trying to save money by cutting benefits. I believe that they excel in short-term planning—looking towards the next election and no further. What they are trying to do, as in all other departments, is cut benefit expenditure so that they can buy votes with tax cuts at the next election. I do not believe that the British electorate will be bought at the expense of the most vulnerable in society.
We must look at the report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about the gap between the rich and poor. Poverty damages people's health. It will increase the bill to the taxpayer; the more ill people are, the more the taxpayer must pay. The creation of an underclass costs money, through an increase in crime. I believe that the


Secretary of State for Social Security acknowledged that fact when he spoke in Northern Ireland a few months ago. He talked about the gap between the rich and poor and about the unemployed. He linked it to a rise in crime. It will have a knock-on effect for the taxpayer—through higher prices not only for the police and the prison service but for insurance premiums, as crime rates go up.
The most recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that the tax and benefits system does not bolster the married state. The Government talk about the family all the time. I firmly believe, as I am sure do hon. Members on both sides of the House, that a stable family—and I mean a stable family—is the best way to bring up children, but the Government are letting the family down. One has only to look at that report to know that that is true. There will be a tremendous knock-on effect for the stability of the country in the future.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Lady tell us in which way the decision of the Liberal party conference to provide for the prescription of contraceptives to under-age children bolsters the family?

Ms Lynne: I really wish that I had not given way to such a stupid remark. We are talking about social security uprating. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman is called, he can make his points in his own way.
The Secretary of State should be addressing all aspects of benefits and should not just talk about benefit tourists, scroungers and fraud, although I want to get rid of fraud as much as he probably does. He must examine the more difficult arguments as well. It is all very fine for him to get a standing ovation at the Conservative party conference when he talks about wiping out fraud. I would like to see him get a standing ovation at that conference by talking about investment in people. I doubt very much whether he would get one, or indeed whether he would even talk about it.
I welcome the chance that the orders have given us to debate benefits. We must use the benefits system to lift people out of poverty. They are usually there through no fault of their own. We must ensure that they can make a worthwhile contribution to society in future. But that requires bold planning. We need to bring in some bold measures. I would like to see a proper, full benefit transfer scheme to get people back into work. I would like to see a low-income benefit. I make no apology for mentioning it again, but I would like to merge income support and family credit so that people are always better off in work and do not lose benefits pound for pound. I would like to see a top-up element to the basic state pension—it has gone down in real terms since the Government came into power—in line with income support, and for that top-up element to be linked to earnings.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Lady—like the Rowntree report—seems to advocate raising the level of benefits above that of price inflation. Will she cost that? What is the Liberal policy, and by what amount should the benefits be uprated?

Ms Lynne: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I was proposing the restructuring of the benefits system and the introduction of a benefit transfer scheme. I was proposing the merging of benefits. I cannot talk about the possibility of uprating income

support and family credit, for instance, given that we want to merge the two schemes into a single low-income benefit. That is the way in which we can return people to work.
The debate gives us a great opportunity to examine the Government's strategy. In fact, I do not believe that they have a strategy to improve the benefits system. Although I welcome the introduction of a measure on statutory sick pay to remove the burden from small businesses, its effect is very small in comparison with the impact of the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1994 on small businesses throughout the country. I doubt whether many small businesses are currently congratulating the Government.
The Government are trying to pretend that they are giving more than they are. Similarly, they stated that under the Act small employers would be given a rebate if an employee was off sick for more than four weeks; they failed to add that the majority of employees return to work before the four weeks are up. Nevertheless, the order that we are discussing will help small businesses if, for instance, a large number of employees are off work with flu. I welcome that, but it should have been in the Act.
Employees have suffered discrimination under the current statutory sick pay arrangements. Now that firms must pay 100 per cent. of the bill, employers are looking for people with better sickness records. That is understandable, but it is not acceptable. Employers have dismissed staff who have worked for them for under two years because of their sickness records; citizens' advice bureaux have a list of problems connected with the Statutory Sick Pay Act, but the order contains no proposals to help the people concerned.
As I have said, I welcome the small amount of help that has been given, but I feel that we should consider wider issues. I was sad to note that maternity benefit and the funeral grant have been left out of the uprating of the social fund; I was particularly sad about the funeral grant.
In 1986, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—who has already been quoted—said that the habitual residence test would be an administrative nightmare. I entirely agree: indeed, it is already beginning to be an administrative nightmare. The Secretary of State mentioned benefits to tourists in his speech at the Conservative party conference, and that is why the order was laid. The right hon. Gentleman even acted against the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
The problem with the test is that it does not define habitual residence for the purpose of the order, and there will therefore be appeals in many cases. Many such cases are being won, but in the mean time the people involved are denied benefit because the Government say that they will appeal again. I very much doubt that they will pay interest if the next appeal is won.
I have encountered several such cases in my constituency. One of my constituents has worked in this country for some time, but when his father became very ill in Pakistan he went off to look after him. It took just over a year for the father to die. The son returned to this country, began to work again and paid his national insurance and tax contributions. Then his mother was taken ill. As there were no other relatives to look after her, he had to return to Pakistan to nurse her and take care of all her affairs. She subsequently died.
The man has just returned to this country. He came to my surgery last week in a terrible state, because he was receiving no money. He has nothing to live on. This is a


man who was working in this country, and paying tax and national insurance. Now he is living off friends: he is desperate. I am sure that, if the Secretary of State or the Minister had seen him in my surgery, they would have realised that he was a genuine case. He is a British citizen, and has worked in this country.
In the speech to which I referred earlier, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon said that people should be able to obtain money from the social fund if they were turned down for income support, housing benefit or a rebate for poll tax—which has now become council tax—or if they failed the habitual residence test. My constituent could not obtain money from the social fund; he has no money at all.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon—who, of course, is now the Prime Minister—went on to say:
What is clear from all our habits and history is that when people are in desperate need it has never been the fashion in this country—nor would it be the wish of my hon. Friends—not to provide assistance that is sorely needed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 537.]
Things may have changed; things may have moved on. But that is still an excellent argument against the test.
The main problems have been experienced by British nationals, although the order was designed to catch foreigners. I do not want people to come here and claim benefit to which they are not entitled, but the legislation is affecting British citizens who, having gone abroad to work on contract for perhaps a couple of years, return to find that they cannot claim anything.
Another example is the person who lives abroad with a spouse who subsequently dies. It is usually the wife who returns to be near the family; that wife is not allowed to claim benefit. She is refused under the habitual residence test. A constituent of mine is in that position. Her husband is dead, she has two children and she cannot claim any support.
In the first three months of the operation of the test, 2,086 British nationals were denied benefit. We are not talking about foreigners; we are talking about British nationals. The money is means tested, so the revocation of the order would not benefit those with considerable resources. It is those with nothing—those experiencing real hardship—who would benefit.
The Child Poverty Action Group has drawn attention to the case of a British woman who went to Spain. It was the usual story: she married, and then went to Spain to live with her husband. He left her, and she came back to this country with two children aged seven and 10. Her husband had left her with no money, and she had nowhere to live in Spain, so she returned to this country. She could not obtain income support, because she could not prove that she was habitually resident here. She, too, has no money. How on earth is she supposed to support her two children?
I do not see how the Government can fail to accept that a number of people have suffered acute hardship. That number does not run into many thousands now, but if we do not revoke the order it could increase dramatically. I only wish that the nice words of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon meant something today. Surely, now that he is Prime Minister, he should have more influence; he should read again what he said in his speech about the habitual residence test. The Secretary of State and the Minister should also take note of what the Prime Minister said then.
What savings will the Government make? I do not think that the savings could compare with the misery that the Government are creating for some British families. I hope that they will revoke the order, because it is targeting the wrong people. It must be scrapped because, otherwise, people will live in abject poverty. We must also consider restructuring the whole benefit system, otherwise we will have not only a two-tier health service, but a two-tier wealth service, which will tear the country apart.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: This—and any—debate on public spending must start from the basic proposition: what can the country afford? After all, every penny that is paid in benefit ultimately comes out of the taxpayer's pocket. We have been able to uprate these benefits fully against inflation because the economy is being run properly. A large amount of money—£.1.5 billion—is involved. In no shape or form is that a small or trifling sum; yet as the economy is being run properly, by the end of this century about £8.5 billion less than had been anticipated will be spent. That is the effect of the recovery which has resulted from the Government's policy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) said, the sums involved are so huge that one can hardly get a grip on them until one bears in mind that they represent £15 for every working person for every working day. The fact that the country can afford largesse on that scale, paid for by the taxpayer, is a remarkable achievement and it is due in no small measure to the Government's actions. Some people look across the channel—although I do not—harking to the European model and thinking that things might be better over there. It is significant that in the past two years Germany has had to restrict the uprating of benefits to 2 per cent. No pretension exists there that it would be possible to link benefits to the inflation level.
The Government's record speaks for itself. These uprating orders speak for themselves and they are a remarkable achievement. In a sense, the debate need go no further than that. One might honestly have wondered why the orders could not simply have gone through on the nod, perhaps with just a short speech or two to compliment the Government on their achievement. That would have been a waste of an opportunity. After about 14 years in the House, I still retain a complete lack of cynicism. I thought that we knew where the Government stood on this, but that it would be a useful and fair opportunity to hear what the Labour party would do to improve the position. The debate would even give it the opportunity to say, "Thank you and sorry". I thought that we could come along and hear what Labour's alternatives are.
It may be the passing of the years and defects in hearing, which can affect us all, but I did not hear anything from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, to give me the merest hint of what we might expect from a Labour Government. One must go back into history to the last Labour Government to get any clue about what might be in store. Let us consider what might be in store in terms of public expenditure and on the basis of the model of the last Labour Government. It was not a question of coming to the House in a calm and moderate way and saying, "These are the things that we can afford.


We can afford uprating in accordance with the level of inflation". Oh no, there was a telephone call from the International Monetary Fund calling the Chancellor of the Exchequer back from an airport. That is the way things were done in the old days.
Anyone who doubts that can refresh their memory by reading the Rowntree report which, as we heard again from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, is not particularly perfect but which reminds us that the wages of the lowest-paid men fell between 1975 and 1978 and that it was only under a Conservative Government that in due course their wages increased. That fall did not occur because of a defect of compassion among Labour members or because they were insouciant. They were simply incompetent: they could not run an economy capable of generating the tax revenue which turns compassion into something realistic and tangible.
The Labour party's policy on benefit is a bit like its policy on interest rates. That is the nearest that one can get to a definition of it. Whatever interest rates are at any given time, the Labour party says that they should be 2 per cent. lower. On benefits it says, "We are not quite sure what our policy is, but whatever it is it will be better than that of the Conservative party."
When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was given the opportunity to talk about this, he said in the New Statesman and Society of 15 July 1994:
I do not think it is sensible for Labour to write tax and spending policies now.
Really? It might not be sensible to give them in detail, but perhaps just a little hint, a taster or an indication of what might be on offer should be given. The only indication that I have been able to find is an apparent commitment that the upper rate of tax might go up to 50 per cent. So far so good. Is that an aspect of compassion? Not really. The figures have been quoted time and again.
The figures were revealed first by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who does know something about social security matters. In 1986, he was the first to table a parliamentary question which revealed that when tax rates are reduced the total amount of tax paid to the Exchequer by the richest people in the land increases. So if one is in the business of generating more tax income to spend on people who should benefit, one achieves that by lower and not higher tax rates. The one piece of policy that I have been able to glean from the Labour party—that the upper rate of tax might go up to 50 per cent.—will satisfy the neo-Stalinist tendency in the Labour party, but it will not produce any more money. An opportunity has been lost today to find out the Labour party's attitude to that.
What are people looking for in the orders? First, they are looking for a sense of fairness. The point about the habitual residence qualification has been referred to on a number of occasions. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Withington and responded to him in the most charming way. I asked whether he would revoke the order. When I saw that he was running out of time, I thought that I had to help him and that he should not run of time without answering that question. In my usual kind-hearted way, I stood up and reminded the hon. Gentleman that time was running short and that he would have to answer that question—but he did not do so. In the

end, the closest he could get to an answer was to say that he was very unhappy about the definition of the order, but he was not quite sure whether he would revoke it or not.
For a legislator to complain about a lack of definition to get out of answering a straight question is intellectually dishonest. We can always change the definitions in the House. We needed to hear from the Labour party today whether it had a contribution to make to changing the definition, which preserves the principle of a habitual residence qualification.
I know the vice at which the order is being aimed, and so do my constituents. I find it bizarre to hear Opposition Members say that the present definition is so unfair. I will tell hon. Members some of the criteria that are brought into play in deciding whether a person has a habitual residence qualification. I will cite just three. The criteria include showing a genuine commitment to living and working in the United Kingdom, a previous record of work or contributions to the UK, and answering questions such as why they came to the UK, whether they have a home elsewhere, and what their intentions are as to residence.
There does not seem to be anything too draconian in those criteria. There is ample opportunity to say, "I was born in this country and I was working here. Then I went abroad, but I had a family crisis over there and the job fell through, so here I am back in this country."

Ms Lynne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will not give way because time is short.
The possibility exists within those definitions to produce a sense of fairness. If something else is necessary in the light of experience of Conservative and perhaps Labour members, let the definition be considered again. But the concerns of my constituents about benefit tourism will not be answered by the Labour party turning around and saying either, "We simply do not agree with the concept" or, "We cannot quite bring ourselves to do that, so we shall carp endlessly about the definition without saying whether we intend to revoke the order or not."
Any system of benefits and the acceptance of these orders rely on the support of and acceptance by the taxpayer that the Government are properly disbursing the money that the taxpayer contributes. It is directly relevant to consider cases such as the one mentioned in the House some two weeks ago involving the famous Watters family with five children and receiving the equivalent in benefits of £25,000 in pre-tax income. That has done incredible damage to acceptance of the social security system. It is difficult to exaggerate the effect that that has on traditional family views. People in the neighbourhood say to themselves, "I could not begin to earn half that amount, but if I was on benefit I could." That causes outrage among the public and must be dealt with.
If any Members are in doubt about the way in which the benefits system is sometimes seen by ordinary members of the public, they could do no better than consider a letter that I have received today from a pensioner in Plympton, which is not in my constituency—[Interruption.] Interestingly, the person concerned wrote to me with this debate in mind. I shall not quote the whole letter, although it would certainly bear quotation. It says:
It is very disturbing that whilst extra charges and taxes can be imposed on us so easily, there is no … correction made to the reckless and unjustifiable distribution of taxpayers' money. The


various agencies are given more and more, flout the principles of the guidelines under which they are supposed to work, take more and more for their own benefit and look for bizarre ways of spending—such as six 'helpers' taking one offender on holiday, sending criminals on safari trips—again with an adequate number of minders. Every day one can read in the papers about the squandering of money on legal aid. Politicians agree it is wrong, taxpayers are appalled but nothing is done to stop it." [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many seated interventions. If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is hoping to catch my eye later, I hope that he will bear in mind my dislike of such interventions.

Mr. Nicholls: We must address the fact that people in this country feel that those are considerations which sometimes influence our debate a great deal more than they should. In the end, whether we like it or not, the benefits of which the House disposes are paid for by people who overwhelmingly are basic rate taxpayers. The money has to come from their pockets. If the benefits system is to be credible, the middle classes must believe that it is running properly and that it is looking after those who cannot look after themselves.
We can compare the contributions that we have heard today from Opposition Members with the measured way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to introduce these upratings. If the middle classes want to know that they have a Government capable of working out what the country can afford and focusing funds on those on whom they should be focused, there is no doubt that they should hope for the continuation of a Conservative regime and not what has been represented from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: There is an air of unreality about the debate. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was carrying on as though those living on benefits were living the life of Riley. He totally ignored the fact that he has been loyally. if not slavishly, supporting a Government who for the past 15 years have presided over an increase in the wealth of the richest 10 per cent. by about 62 per cent., a decrease in the living standards of the poorest 10 per cent. by at least 17 per cent., an increase in homelessness, an increase in the number living on below average earnings from 5 million to 14 million, an increase in the number of children living in poverty households from 1.4 million to more than 4 million while at the same time the Government have been selling off all our publicly owned utilities at knock-down prices—giving them away—encouraging shareholders to make a great deal of money out of them initially and allowing chief executives to have take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. The Government have created the misery, divisions and horrors that exist in our society today.
These orders simply confirm the trend that has gone on for the past 15 years. The Government talk as if they are handing out gifts to the poorest people in our society. In fact, they have presided over a reduction in wage levels for the poorest and an increase in salaries for the very richest. They talk as though pensions were the greatest burden on our society. They should take a look around and meet those struggling to survive on the state pension and any other state benefits to which they are entitled, particularly older women pensioners who have no access

to an occupational pension scheme, no access to any savings and who rely on the pension, income support and housing benefit to get by.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) has, gladly, left us. He said that we should take into account all the other benefits to which people are entitled, such as the public transport subsidy. The very poorest cannot even afford the subsidised bus fares that are on offer. Before Conservative Members start to talk, as they do, about the use of the national health service and other things, they should study the reports and see who gains the most from the NHS and who gains the most from the state education system. It tends to be the most articulate middle classes in our community rather than the very poorest who do best out of those services. Those issues need to be addressed.
Conservative Members talk about the need to curtail and control housing benefit expenditure. I can provide a simple answer as to why housing benefit expenditure has increased. There are two reasons: first, unemployment has increased, so eligibility for housing benefit has gone up; secondly, rents have gone sky high, encouraged by a Government hell bent on deregulation. The housing benefit helps not the individual but the landlord, whether it be a private landlord, a housing association or a local authority.
The Government say that there is the option of private rented accommodation. Last week I was talking to an unemployed man of no fixed abode. He moves from friend to friend and relative to relative, getting a night's kip here and a night's kip there. He cannot get a council house because he is a single person with no dependants. He asked me for advice. I asked him what he had tried and he told me that he had tried everywhere. I said, "What about private rented accommodation? You will get housing benefit to pay for a bedsit or a small flat." He said, "That may be so, but find me a landlord who will let me move in without putting down a deposit of at least a month's rent, if not three month's rent, and who will give me the money for that?" That is the reality of the housing benefit rules.
Conservative Members decry anyone who looks seriously into the issues of poverty in our society. They decry the Rowntree report and anyone who talks about poverty.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corbyn: No, there is not enough time.
The Government decry anyone who tries seriously to examine poverty in Britain. The Government have presided over a massive growth in poverty. They are encouraging and creating poverty in our society. Then they claim that unemployment is falling and that everyone is better off. It is true that the unemployment figures indicate that it is falling, but it is also true that the number of people denied benefit is increasing and the number of people living with no real support is increasing very rapidly.
The debate should be much longer because this is an important and serious subject. The central thrust of the Government's intentions is to reduce the overall cost of social security. They are trying to do it by privatisation and by decreasing the level of the state pension so that people in middle age are forced to take out a portable private pension scheme, however insecure that might be,


so as to provide something for themselves when they reach retirement age. To create that false market for the private pension scheme—the Secretary of State admitted it to the Select Committee—they are subsidising the national insurance fund. The Government are prepared to back up private investment and to create this false market while doing nothing about the serious problems of the waste of human resources, human life and human expectations as a result of the increase in poverty in Britain.
We need an attack on poverty in Britain. We need a real welfare state. Our welfare state is not safe in the hands of the ideological monsters on the Government Benches who are hell bent on destroying it.

Mr. David Lidington: I take up a point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Nobody would wish to quarrel with the objective of seeking policies that are designed to tackle problems of poverty. The important difference between us is that Conservatives believe that such policies need to be based on a thorough analysis of where those problems derive from, how they can be tackled effectively and at what cost and from whom such costs should be met.
I want to raise a point of detail as well as some more general points of principle. That point is the cash limit placed on funeral expenses, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). I understand and support the reasons behind the change in the Government's policy, but I bring to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends the concern of some funeral directors that increased church fees for ecclesiastical funerals may, in some circumstances, make it difficult for them to meet the cap imposed by the Department of Social Security. There are always difficulties in deciding whether a system should be discretionary or based on a formula, but I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will bear that point in mind.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) talked in some detail about the demographic and social changes that will shape the debate about social security over the next couple of decades. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester alluded to the continuing cost of social security. We are talking about a system where expenditure has increased sevenfold since the initiation of the welfare state in the late 1940s and early 1950s. If one tracks through recent Treasury Red Books the underlying pattern of non-cyclical social security expenditure, one sees a continuing upward pattern—£49 billion in 1989–90, just over £70 billion in the current financial year and an estimate of £79.5 billion in 1997–98.
I welcome the news from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the projected growth in non-cyclical underlying spending is to be reduced, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester pointed out, underlying growth of 2.1 per cent. year on year rests on the ability of our economy to generate the wealth which is needed to pay for that increase. It is in that context that we have to take account of the demographic changes—the growing number of elderly people relative to a shrinking

population at working age and the changes in family structure—which affect levels of income support, family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
Obviously, the most important way in which to cut social security spending is to encourage employment. I am less cynical than the hon. Member for Islington, North about progress in that direction. I particularly welcome the elements in my right hon. Friend's package of measures which are designed to encourage people to go back to work, such as the back-to-work bonus, cuts in employers' national insurance contributions and changes to the regulations which make it easier for an unemployed person to try a new form of employment without necessarily putting at risk his future entitlement to benefit if that trial employment does not work out. I welcome those measures and would like such efforts to continue.
The relationship between family policy and the social security system is worth several days' debate in its own right. All I would say is that it is not a problem that we alone confront. The Germans, for example, require adult children to contribute towards the upkeep of very elderly relatives who require residential care. The Government cannot be indifferent to the costs which broken relationships and broken families force on the benefit system. In their differing ways, the most recent report of the Rowntree trust, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Archbishop of York have all said that we must look carefully at the impact of tax and the benefit system on family life. As a country, we must get the balance right between family responsibility and state responsibility. That objective admirably suits the political approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I am once again appalled that further poverty is being inflicted on our folk, although I welcome the meagre increases that the Minister has announced. Those increases do not, however, go far enough and do not deal with the tragic poverty and suffering in Britain. I was amazed that the Minister capped the funeral benefit at £875, when the professionals are clearly telling him that £1,200 is needed for a poverty funeral. Let us be honest. We will be talking about bin-bag burials in Britain if the Government continue their policy. They are not listening to the people who perform the burials. What a tragic situation we have in Britain when people in poverty cannot bury their folk with dignity. A wee bit of support from the Government should be encouraged. Yes, Minister, I believe that you are creating a bin-bag burial policy—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has again forgotten that he needs to address me rather than the Minister directly.

Mr. Graham: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to make a fast speech.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) mentioned housing benefit. Yes, it has trebled—but why? It has trebled because rents have increased in Britain and in Scotland, especially under the quango Scottish Homes run by this Government, which has constantly increased its rent every year by 10 per cent. or four times the rate of inflation. Indeed, it has increased its rent by three times the rate of inflation this year. Housing benefit has gone through the roof because the Government do not have a


decent housing policy that gives folk with low incomes the right to a reasonable living standard, a home and a roof. Housing benefit has tripled because of the Government's bad housing policy.
If the Minister goes about Britain, he will see car boot sales and thank God for them because they provide many goods at low cost which the Government's policies do not allow folk to purchase in the shops. Car boot sales provide one of the best social benefits that this country has seen for many years. Who would have believed that? That is the economy that the Government are forcing on the people of Great Britain.
An article in the Evening Times describes Britain as
A land fit for Dinkies".
When I was a kid, dinkies were motor cars but, in this case, they are people who survive only if they have a double income and no kids. The article also says that even Spain is no longer taking people from Britain who have a basic pension because they are too poor.
The article points out the social benefit protection per head in Luxembourg, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, France, Belgium, Italy, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. Does the Minister know where we come on that list? We come seventh. It is unbelievable that the great, wealthy nation of Great Britain has lowered its people to a basic income that is seven times lower than that in many other countries. Let us take the highest figure. Benefits in Luxembourg are £5,000 per head. What does Britain provide? Its figure is £3,163.
The Government are pathetic. In no way are they looking after the needs of the people whom they have made poor. They have done nothing to help the low-paid climb to the upper echelons of living standards—a rightly deserved move. They have allowed themselves to be driven by a low-wage economy. It is time that the Government supported the social chapter in Europe. That is the way forward to ensure that our folk have a decent, basic, minimum wage, with which they can hold their heads up high and pay for their purchases, as we are all entitled to do. Once again, the Minister has got it wrong. He is well-known as the Minister of misery.

Mr. Bradley: It has been a thoughtful and, at times, fiery debate, if all too short. I shall be brief because I spoke for a considerable time when I opened the debate and I want to give as much time as possible to the Minister so that he may respond to the many questions raised.
I commend one or two speeches, especially the thoughtful—as always—speech made by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). I was disappointed with his conclusion on the introduction of incapacity benefit. In Committee, I thought that he was moving the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill through the House with a heavy heart. Clearly, I misinterpreted that—the right hon. Gentleman is now fully signed up to its implications. I shall watch with interest when those implications come to fruition.
I hope that the Minister will consider in some detail the many cases of genuine concern that hon. Members have brought to the attention of the House, which cannot be

described as benefit tourism, to ensure that, as there is no definition of the habitual residence test, the interpretation of the criteria does not in any way undermine claimants.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made his usual interesting speech. I thought that it was a bit rich for him to commend the Government on efficiency when, in one day, they spent more than £7 billion on the debacle of the exchange rate mechanism. The Labour party will clearly be voting to revoke the habitual residence test
Will the Minister specifically consider the issues that I raised on uprating, especially the compensation recovery unit, and the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members from all parties about the social fund and funeral costs? Most importantly, I hope that the Minister will give us all the details that we are seeking about how the habitual residence test is operating in practice. How many people have been refused? How many of those who have been refused have appealed? How many appeals have been successful? What has been the administration cost of the habitual residence test? What has been the net saving through the denial of income support as compared with the cost of administration of the habitual residence test?
Until we have those assurances, that information and the information that we seek consistently through parliamentary questions, so as to discover what is happening in the real world, from which in many ways the Secretary of State's contribution today seemed remote, we shall continue to vote against the orders on the habitual residence test.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I am afraid that several questions will remain unanswered this evening because I do not have much time to respond to the debate. I shall try to write to hon. Members in respect of any questions that remain outstanding.
It is the custom to say that a debate has been interesting. In this case, that is perfectly true. We have been sitting on the edges of our seats waiting to hear what the Labour party would propose instead of the uprating orders. Sadly, we were deafened by silence.
In that regard, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made a telling point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), in a deeply considered and compassionate analysis of the problems that we face, also made the point in a way that left the Labour party more silent than it normally is. Would Labour reverse our mortgage interest provisions? The answer was silence. Would Labour reverse our changes to housing benefit? The answer was more silence.
For such a talkative Opposition, they have very little to say when it really matters. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked me about uprating, and referred to statutory maternity pay. He was right to say that it is not being uprated in April; that is because it was uprated last October by 7.5 per cent. However, he was silent about what he would do about it. He was asked whether, if he were in power, he would have uprated those payments. We shall never know the answer.
The hon. Member for Withington made several other points, one of which was about non-dependant deductions. He suggested that they were too high. It is reasonable to


expect the highest earning adult non-dependants to make a significant contribution towards their housing costs. Even so, the highest non-dependant deduction of £30 is a lot less than the average market rent and the council tax that he or she could expect to pay if living as a tenant elsewhere.
There were other interesting contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) made several points. She said that pensions had not kept pace with inflation. They have. She said that there should not be a reduction in the Treasury top-up to the national insurance fund. However, the point is that national insurance contributions are not going up this year, contrary to what the hon. Lady said. Employers' contributions are going down and the economy is improving. That is why more people are in work and earning more. That means more income to the fund from national insurance contributions.
We are here today to ratify the orders which will give effect to another full benefits uprating. Our approach is to use the taxpayers' money in the most effective way. That means targeting on the people who need most help; for example, the extra £1.2 billion a year since 1988 to poorer pensioners. That gave rise to the very important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff)—that targeting can be resented by those who have just missed being in the target group. That problem is inherent in any benefit system unless we pay benefits to everyone. The key point is to improve pensioners' income overall, and that is happening dramatically under this Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a very good point about the size of social security spending which takes up one eighth of gross domestic product. As a result of our reforms, we expect that to reduce over the longer term and that is being achieved in large part by the reduction that we have already seen through tighter control of abuse in the benefits system, by bearing down on fraud in respect of incapacity and sickness benefits.
I want now to deal with the Opposition motion to revoke the habitual residence test. Britain's reputation among young Europeans is one of a good place to spend a summer holiday. How right they are. We welcome each and every one of them, but we ask that they pay their way. The Department's postbag from the British public was sending a very strong message indeed. The public are simply not prepared to support people who have no connection with, or commitment to, this country.
In that regard, I am thinking of the 36-year-old German woman who, in her first visit to this country, arrived in the United Kingdom on 16 January to look for work. She says that she was told in Germany that she should be able to claim benefits. Opposition Members have made great play of the plight of British citizens denied benefit because they could not fulfil the conditions of the test. The reality is rather different. In reality, they are strangers to the United Kingdom and certainly strangers to pay-as-you-earn.
Take, for example, the 28-year-old woman, who has lived in Nigeria for the past 20 years and had a job there until leaving for the United Kingdom. She has an eight-month-old child. She has left her husband who remains in Nigeria. Or one can take the 22-year-old

Canadian-born woman, of British parentage, visiting Edinburgh with the intention of then backpacking around Europe—

Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I do not have time.
They are very welcome, but not at our expense. The hon. Members for Withington and for Rochdale made play of the fact that a different test was rejected by the Prime Minister in 1986. That test applied after only 12 months and it was a test which would have been in breach of European Community law.

Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No, the hon. Gentleman has had two goes. I am trying to fit everything into the 10 minutes left to me.
The test rejected by the Prime Minister in 1986 was rightly rejected for those reasons. Our test limits benefits to those people with a definite commitment to living and working in this country. In that respect, we have come into line with other European countries.

Mr. Bradley: Give way.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have made it plain that I am not going to give way.
We have removed a burden from the British taxpayer. Taxpayers will not have to subsidise people who have no close ties with the United Kingdom and who have not made a recent financial contribution to the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Withington is trying to ask me questions from a sedentary position. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge pointed out, his position on that measure was nothing short of extraordinary. In one and the same breath he seemed to support it, to want to review it and to want to revoke it.
In the face of our well thought out and positive measures, let us consider what is on offer from the Labour party. Those who voted for Labour at the last election will be sadly disappointed by what they have heard today. The Labour party manifesto promised that Labour would uprate the pension in line with prices, but we heard not a squeak about that today. How timid the Labour party has become.
In a television interview a few days ago, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) tried to be brave. He said:
I think that the present level of income support is inadequate.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether, if Labour were in power, the hon. Member for Garscadden would raise it, the hon. Gentleman did a three-point turn. He said, "No, no, no." That was quicker than Labour's U-turn on education policies because at least Labour's education policies lasted a full day; this one hardly lasted full minute. We know why the Labour party refuses to produce any policies; it is because Labour policies always cost vast amounts of other people's money. Labour spokesmen are aware that if they say anything at all their words will be costed, so they have spent the entire debate saying nothing, at great length.
The Labour party set up a Commission on Social Justice, but it is scared to accept the £7 billion price tag. Now Labour Members will have to make a decision. It will be hard for them but they must have a go. They will


have to decide whether to vote in favour of more money for pensioners. Many people might think that that. would be an easy decision, but history tells us otherwise. This time last year, Labour Members of Parliament made the historic decision to vote against the pension increase. Will they do that again this year? I would not put anything past them; but I must be fair—not all Labour Members voted against.

Mr. Bradley: indicated assent.

Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman confirms that. The Labour Front-Bench spokesmen did not vote against the pension increase—because they did not vote at all.

It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [24 February].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Willetts]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1807), dated 7th July 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, in the last session of Parliament, be revoked.—[Mr. Bradley.]

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 287.

Division No. 89]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Caborn, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Callaghan, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ashton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Austin-Walker, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Battle, John
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beckett, Rt: Hon Margaret
Church, Judith


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Betts, Clive
Clelland, David


Blunkett, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boateng, Paul
Coffey, Ann


Boyes, Roland
Cohen, Harry


Bradley, Keith
Connarty, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Corbett, Robin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Burden, Richard
Corston, Jean


Byers, Stephen
Cousins, Jim





Cox, Tom
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cummings, John
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Jowell, Tessa


Darling, Alistair
Keen, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Wrkwood, Archy


Denham, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Dixon, Don
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dobson, Frank
Litheriand, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H
Livingstone, Ken


Dowd, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eagle, Ms Angela
Macdonald, Calum


Eastham, Ken
Mackinlay, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
MacShane, Denis


Fatchett, Derek
Maddock, Diana


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mahon, Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marek,DrJohn


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Maxton, John


Galbraith, Sam
McAllion, John


Galloway, George
McCartney, Ian


Gapes, Mike
McFall, John


George, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Gerrard, Neil
McMaster, Gordon


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWilliam, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Michael


Gordon, Mildred
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gunnel, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Mortey, Elliot


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hodge, Margaret
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoey, Kate
O'Hara, Edward


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoon, Geoffrey
Olner, Bill


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Patchett, Terry


Hoyle, Doug
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Hutton,John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jamieson, David
Purchase, Ken


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Johnston, Sir Russell
Reid, DrJohn






Rendel, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeok)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Timms, Stephen


Rogers, Allan
Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Rooney, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ruddock, Joan
Wallace, James


Short, Clare
Wardel, Gareth (Gower)


Skinner, Dennis
Watson, Mike


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wicks, Malcolm



Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Soley, Ciive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Audrey


Spellar.John
Worthington, Tony


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wray, Jimmy


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony


Stevenson, George



Strang, Dr. Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Joe Benton and 


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mrs. Barbara Roche.




NOES


Ainsworlh, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Congdon, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbutnnot, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Atkins, Robert
Couchman, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Day, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bates, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingharn, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Booth, Hartley
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boswell, Tim
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowis, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Bright, Sir Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fishbum, Dudley


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Burt, Alistair
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Butcher, John
Forth, Eric


Butler, Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butterfill, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Freeman, Fit Hon Roger


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
French, Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Fry, Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Gallie, Phil


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Churchill, Mr
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfoid)
Gillan, Cheryl


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Gorst, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Hggins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson,Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lord, Michael
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Martow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)






Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Thomason, Roy
Watts, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David


Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Tellers for the Noes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Sydney Chapman and 


Ward, John
Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before we move on to motion Nos. 7 and 8, I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has decided that there should be a limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench Members' speeches. Although that limit does not apply to the speeches of Front-Bench Members, I hope that they will be distinguished more for their quality than for their quantity.

Local Government

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move,
That the draft North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Humberside (Structural Chance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

Mr. Jones: With modifications, the orders implement the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for the future structure of local government in North Yorkshire and Humberside. I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I take the principal issues relating to the orders in the following order: first, details of the proposed new structure in both areas; then boundaries, powers and functions; electoral arrangements; and staffing, planning and ceremonial arrangements.
From 1 April 1996, the City of York will be a unitary authority on extended boundaries, which will incorporate parts of the districts of Ryedale, Selby and Harrogate. I shall return to the details of the boundary changes in due course. The remainder of the county of North Yorkshire will remain two tier, retaining both district and county councils. On 1 April 1996, the county of Humberside and Humberside county council will be abolished and will be succeeded by four unitary authorities.
The existing authority of Kingston upon Hull, on its existing boundaries, will be given unitary powers. The existing authorities of Holderness, Beverley, East Yorkshire and the northern part of Boothferry will be abolished and will comprise a single new authority, to be called the East Riding of Yorkshire. The existing authorities of Cleethorpes and Grimsby will be abolished and will comprise a single new unitary authority, to be called North East Lincolnshire. The existing authorities of Glanford and Scunthorpe and that part of Boothferry district south of the northern boundaries of the parishes of Crowle, Eastoft, Luddington, Haldenby and Amcotts will be abolished and will comprise a new unitary authority, to be called North Lincolnshire. That is the area known as the Isle of Axholme.
As a rule, decisions about where boundaries should be drawn are difficult and provoke strong feelings. Our decisions about the boundaries of York and Hull have not proved to be an exception to that rule. In the case of the City of York, we have accepted the commission's recommendation—with only very minor modifications to exclude five small parishes—that the city's boundaries should be extended to include the York greater planning area. That will substantially increase the area covered by the city, and will increase its population from its existing 101,000 to approximately 167,000.
In making its recommendations to us, the commission took into account a number of factors, including the ability of a unitary authority to deliver services effectively and efficiently and the need to recognise community identity and the expression of local opinion. It acknowledged that opposition to the extension of the city's boundaries to include the greater planning area was


strongest in the outlying areas beyond the ring road. The strength of the opposition has also been made clear to us in the many representations that we have received from local residents and their parish councils. Nevertheless, the commission concluded, and we agreed, that the balance of advantage lay with providing an enlarged boundary to enable the new authority to deliver services efficiently and effectively and to adopt a strategic approach to economic development, transportation planning and environmental issues, among other things.

Mr. Frank Dobson: What reasons did the commission and the Department adduce to show that, if the boundary were merely extended to the ring road, the requirements would not be met?

Mr. Jones: The trouble with merely extending the boundary to the ring road, as the hon. Gentleman must know, is that that road breaks through about 11 parishes and runs inside the existing city of York. At one point, it would reduce the area of the city and, at other points, it would lead to the fragmentation of communities.

Mr. Dobson: The Minister's officials have been making the fatuous point that the ring road breaks through certain parishes, but everyone regards it as an approximation of where the boundary ought to be. There is considerably more support—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, there is. There is considerably more support within the ring road for joining York than there is anywhere outside it.

Mr. Jones: The fragmentation of communities and rural parishes may be a trivial matter to the hon. Gentleman, who represents an entirely urban constituency, but I can assure him that the parishes concerned would not want to be split up. Some of the parishes outside the ring road are the most urban in the Greater York area.
During the debate on the Avon order, the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) accused us of proposing boundaries that would
leave Bristol 'cabinn'd, cribb'd, confin'd'."—[official Report, 22 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 410.]
The city of Bristol covers an area of 10,954 hectares. The existing city of York covers an area of only 2,946 hectares.
Of course, we have said that we shall ask the commission to reconsider the Bristol boundary. I do not believe that it is necessary for it to look again at the York boundary because our proposals should ensure that the city is not "cabinn'd, cribb'd or confin'd".
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was quoted in the Yorkshire Evening Press recently. An editorial on 24 February 1995 said:
It is a rich irony when Labour's shadow Environment Secretary attacks plans for a Greater York authority as a 'political racket'. What else does he think he and his party are engaged in when they oppose it? Labour is not making a principled stand on grounds of whether a Greater York will best serve the people, but on grounds of whether it will best serve Labour and the signs are that it will not.
I hope, however, that most people will agree with Councillor Gerald Dean, the leader of the York Conservative group, in his letter to the same paper on 14 November 1994, when he said that it was

vitally important for all people within the Greater York Planning Area now to become partners in a common endeavour to create the new 'City and County of York' unitary authority to serve efficiently and effectively all the communities throughout the area, and to meet the needs and aspirations of all residents and their families and of future generations to come.
Following representations made to us by local people and by their Members of Parliament, we agreed to exclude five small parishes on the outer edges of the greater planning area. We were persuaded that the characteristics of those parishes and their relationship to the districts that they are in were such that their exclusion was justified. Cases were made for other parishes to be excluded, but in our view those were not as strong.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister specify what those characteristics were in relation to the five parishes that were excluded?

Mr. Jones: Certainly. Those were predominantly agricultural parishes, which had much less of a link with the city of York in terms of economic dependence and interdependence. Perhaps I may quote the Yorkshire Evening Press again, on the subject of the hon. Gentleman. In its editorial on 17 February it said:
Opposition from York Labour MP Hugh Bayley too might well seem to be motivated more by the local party's fears about losing its grip on the City council if the boundaries are pushed out to the strongly Liberal Democrat and Conservative suburbs than by a disinterested appreciation of what York needs … The politicians should pay more attention to the real issue here, which is the need to deliver efficient and cost-effective services to a base of people who are defined as living and working in York.
I entirely endorse that editorial.

Mr. John Greenway: On the five parishes, which are all in my constituency, bearing in mind all the allegations about gerrymandering that are flowing back and forth, is not it the case that the removal of those five parishes will make not a scrap of difference to the warding arrangements for the new York authority, and that it will reduce Conservative party chances in the two wards affected?

Mr. Jones: The change certainly does not make much difference to the warding arrangements. I would not know whether it made any political difference, because I certainly did not consider that.
We also took the view that if further parishes were removed, with each additional parish that was removed, the case for allowing the city to adopt a strategic approach to planning and service provision would be weakened.
In the case of Kingston upon Hull, we accepted the commission's recommendation that the unitary authority should be established on the city's existing boundaries. We have, however, decided that—in the light of representations that we received from the city—in due course its boundary with the new East Riding authority should be reviewed. That will not involve major revisions or extensions to the boundary, but will, we hope, sort out a number of small anomalies that exist at the moment.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: In view of the fact that it was considered wise to extend the boundaries of the City of York to include the outlying villages, why was it not also considered wise to extend


the boundaries of Hull to include the outlying villages, as the majority of the people who live there work in and gain all their benefits from Hull?

Mr. Jones: Not only did the commission not recommend that, but it noted the opposition of the areas to which the hon. Gentleman is referring to any such proposal.
There remains one outstanding boundary issue in relation to both the Humberside and the North Yorkshire reviews—the future location of the parishes that form Goole and rural Goole. The commission had recommended that Goole and its hinterland should, with the districts of Craven, Harrogate and Selby, form a unitary authority to be called the West Riding (Dales and Vale) of Yorkshire. We rejected that recommendation because we believed that it failed to take account of community identity.
As a modification, our preferred option was to combine Goole with Selby as a new district in North Yorkshire, but in the light of the representations that we received and to enable the full range of options for the future of Goole to be considered, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will next week direct the commission to undertake a boundary review between the districts of Boothferry, Selby, Glanford and Doncaster, in relation to the parishes that form Goole and rural Goole. The commission will be asked—taking into account the structural arrangements that the orders will produce if they are approved—to recommend whether those parishes should remain with Boothferry, transfer to one of the other authorities, be divided between them, or be established as a district council in its own right in a two-tier North Yorkshire.
The commission will be asked to give priority to that review and to submit its recommendations to us as swiftly as possible.

Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend appreciates the great pleasure that the end of Humberside and the return of our beloved East Riding gives those of us who come from that part of the country, but there is considerable opposition to the last-minute change of view—the decision to put Goole, in the first instance, in with the East Riding of Yorkshire. There is no historical connection or commonality of interest. We welcome the proposal that that decision should be reconsidered and, on behalf of the people of east Yorkshire, I ask that that be done as quickly as possible, so that all the administrative changes caused by reorganisation do not go too far along the line before a decision is made.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned for the abolition of Humberside for a very long time. I am delighted that we are honouring that in the order. On the Goole issue, we shall of course ask the commission to deal with the matter as speedily as possible because of the uncertainty, not merely for planning but for staff. It is very much our view that it should be dealt with speedily and I hope that my hon. Friend and others who feel the same way will make their views known to the commission.

Mr. John Sykes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made an interesting argument. Many of us are delighted today at

the prospect of walking through the Lobby in support of abolishing Humberside. Goole does not belong to Yorkshire, and never did for 1,000 years.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Mind your own business.

Mr. Sykes: Goole never belonged to Humberside. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is a carpetbagger. He is not from Grimsby; he is not from Goole. He ought to know better.
Goole was never part of Yorkshire, and today many people will rejoice in the fact that Yorkshire will once again stretch from the Humber to the Tees, as it did for 1,000 years.

Mr. Jones: I do not know what Goole has done to upset my hon. Friend, but I can tell him that Goole was in the old West Riding of Yorkshire.
Once the orders are made, all the authorities in Humberside and the authorities affected by the changes in North Yorkshire will have extra duties and powers to prepare for the reorganisation. They will each be under a duty to co-operate in implementing change. Unitary authorities will have access to the information that they need.
Once the councils for the unitary authorities have been elected, they will have further powers to make the necessary preparations, including setting budgets and recruiting staff for the functions for which they will assume responsibility on 1 April 1996. They will be required to consider whether any of their new functions would best be discharged through joint arrangements with other authorities. Taken together, we believe that those provisions will ensure a smooth transition to the new structure, while providing proper safeguards for essential services.
In the absence of clear agreement between the authorities in Humberside, we have decided that the superannuation fund maintained by the county council should be vested in the council of the East Riding of Yorkshire. We believe that that will cause the least disruption to the management of the fund and the least inconvenience to its pensioners. The East Riding authority is expected to locate its headquarters in Beverley, where the county's mainframe computer and other systems and communication links and databases are located.
We believe that authorities that are to be given unitary status should be given a fresh democratic mandate. There will therefore be whole council elections to the four unitary authorities in Humberside and to the new City of York authority, in May this year.
In future, with the exception of Hull, all the unitary authorities will hold whole council elections every four years. If they wish to apply to the Secretary of State to change to a system of elections by thirds, they may do so following the passing of a resolution by the whole council, passed by not less than two thirds of the members.
Hull will return to its current arrangement of elections by thirds from 1997. That follows the city's representations that it wished to retain elections by thirds and that it did not wish to have elections in the year immediately after reorganisation. We agree that that is a sensible arrangement and have made similar provision in Bristol.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It would be sensible to increase the number of councillors to four councillors per ward, at


least in the North East Lincolnshire authority. It would also be sensible to hold elections annually—or at least more regularly than the Local Government Commission proposed. The commission said that that matter would be reviewed after five years. When will the Minister entertain an application to review the number of councillors and the frequency of elections?

Mr. Jones: We have always adopted the opinion that we do not wish to lay down a specific rule and that it is for the local authorities concerned to decide whether they hold elections by thirds or all-out elections. The commission will carry out a review of ward boundaries, but naturally its priority must be areas where there are the most inequities between the present elector-councillor ratios. I shall discuss that in relation to Glanford and Scunthorpe specifically in a moment.
With the exception of minor changes that we have made to accommodate leaving Goole in Boothferry while it is being re-reviewed, warding arrangements for the new authorities are as recommended by the commission.
I have received representations from a number of the Humberside authorities that those warding arrangements are unsatisfactory and that the councillor-elector ratio recommended by the commission is inadequate. Specifically, I know that Glanford and Scunthorpe districts feel strongly about the issue. However, we have made it clear that, other than where the arrangements are technically incorrect, or where, as in the case of Boothferry, they need to be changed to reflect modifications that we have made to the commission's structural recommendations, we shall not modify the commission's recommendations for electoral arrangements without first referring them back to the commission to consider any new evidence that we have received.
On the basis of the representations that we had received, we did not consider that it was necessary to refer the recommendations back to the commission, because that would have put at risk the timetable for holding the elections to the new authorities and would have prolonged the uncertainty. We have said, however, that we shall consider asking the commission to undertake an early electoral review of authorities where there is pressure for that and it appears to be necessary, for example, for the districts affected by the York extension.
We acknowledge that staff at all levels will have a crucial role to play in implementing change and ensuring that the new structures work successfully. Most staff—we estimate at least 90 per cent.—will simply end up working for the successor authorities. The majority—the front-line service providers such as teachers and care workers—will transfer by statutory transfer order, ensuring continued provision of essential services from day one of reorganisation. Others will secure posts through open competition if the post is new, or prior consideration in which competition is limited to those in the outgoing and continuing authorities concerned.
We recognise that there may be redundancies. Local government reorganisation is intended, among other things, to achieve greater efficiency and long-term savings in the cost of providing services, and inevitably there will be some effect on staffing structures. The changing role of local government is bound to have implications for the

skills and numbers of the local authority work force, whether there is structural change or not. Ultimately, it will be for the authorities to decide on their new staffing structures and how to fill them, taking account of the available resources and the need to ensure continued provision of services.
We have recently announced new measures for those who are redundant as a result of local government reorganisation. We are also consulting on a possible scheme for detriment compensation for those who take a drop in salary as a result.
As unitary authorities, the new York district council and the four Humberside district councils will be responsible for both strategic and local land use planning in their areas. We are determined that there should be adequate arrangements for strategic planning in areas affected by reorganisation.
Reflecting its recommendations for structural changes, the commission recommended that the authorities for the area north of the Humber should work jointly on a structure plan for their combined areas. It made a similar recommendation for the authorities in the area between the Humber and the Wash. However, as a result of the modifications that we have made to the commission's structural recommendations, we have also needed to modify its recommendations for planning arrangements.
Therefore, having considered representations from the local authorities and other organisations, we have concluded that the most satisfactory grouping of authorities for joint structure plan purposes would be the new York unitary authority working with North Yorkshire county council; the new East Riding of Yorkshire unitary authority working with Kingston upon Hull city council; and the new North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unitary authorities working with Lincolnshire county council.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The Minister must be aware that there is grave concern that that decision is a departure from the Local Government Commission's original recommendation that structural planning in Humberside should be estuary-wide. As someone who once chaired the Environment Select Committee and considered coastal zone policy, I am sure that the Minister would recommend from his own Committee reports that there is a great deal more logic in having structural planning embracing an estuary in terms of industry, conservation and management than in breaking it in two, as in his recommendations. Where is the logic in those recommendations?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I said to my officials, "If the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is there, he will mention estuarial planning," because he and I have a long history of interest in that subject.
Apart from the regional guidance element, there is a duty for neighbouring structure plan authorities to consult, and we intend to ensure that that works to deliver the cross-estuarial co-operation that is necessary for those issues, while retaining the relationship between the North Lincolnshire authorities and Lincolnshire county council for issues that go wider than that. I am sure that the hon.


Gentleman recognises that the area south of Cleethorpes, for example, has links with the rest of Lincolnshire to the south.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Presumably, those estuarial matters can be arranged through the Humberside Forum. When the Minister refers to working with Lincolnshire, what does "working with" mean?

Mr. Jones: As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, the authorities will have a duty to prepare their structure plans together, so obviously it is something that reflects the cross-boundary planning issues. We believe that voluntary arrangements for joint working in those groupings will achieve the desired results.
The draft orders transfer the counties' strategic planning responsibilities for the areas concerned to the new unitary authorities. Each authority will also be responsible for maintaining a local plan for its area. We look to the relevant authorities in North Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire to make the necessary voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan for their respective groupings. Voluntary joint working arrangements are more accountable locally than the statutory joint authorities, which it would become necessary for us to impose if such voluntary arrangements were to fail.
The orders do not provide for ceremonial arrangements. Separate provision will be made for that in regulations. However, it may be helpful to the House if I briefly explain the arrangements that we propose to put in place. In the case of North Yorkshire, the City of York will be deemed to be part of the county of North Yorkshire for ceremonial and related purposes. It will therefore have the same lord lieutenant and high sheriff as the county.
I take this opportunity to reassure people who have expressed concern about York losing its city status. That will not happen. It would be foolish and contrary to everything that we seek to achieve by our reorganisation of local government. Before the existing authority is abolished, we shall make specific provision for the continuation of the city's status and privileges. We are discussing with the Home Office and Privy Council the most expedient way of doing that. Whatever we decide, the city will continue to be a city and it will continue to have a lord mayor.

Mr. Bayley: The Minister specifically mentioned the lord mayor of York. Will York retain its sheriff?

Mr. Jones: Yes. I shall get back to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong.
As Humberside is to be abolished, its lord lieutenant and high sheriff will also be abolished. Instead, north of the Humber we intend to provide for both a lord lieutenant and a high sheriff of the county of the East Riding of Yorkshire. For ceremonial and related purposes, Hull will be deemed to be part of that county and will therefore have the same lord lieutenant and sheriff. South of the Humber, we propose that the North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unitary authorities should be deemed, for ceremonial purposes, to be part of the county of Lincolnshire and to have the same lord lieutenant and high sheriff.
The Yorkshire museum has mounted a very professional campaign not to be transferred from the county council to the City of York. However, as with other property within the new York district area, the museum will pass to the city under the regulations for the transfer of assets and liabilities. The museum is a charitable trust and the terms of the trust state that the beneficial area of that trust is the city of York. As a consequence, the museum and its gardens must transfer to the City of York on reorganisation. I hope that the House agrees that, if we are to entrust the City of York with responsibility for education and social services, it would be faintly ludicrous to say that it could not be trusted to run a museum. We are, however, aware of local concern that the museum should continue to play a role as an institution serving the areas of both North Yorkshire county council and the new City of York council, and we expect the authorities to co-operate in safeguarding that role.
I believe that the changes for which the orders provide will create more comprehensible, and consequently more accountable, local government in the areas that they affect. The abolition of Humberside and the restoration of individual and independent cities of York and Kingston upon Hull will be welcomed, as will the restoration of the East Riding to Yorkshire. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Tonight we are discussing two orders. Both put asunder what the Heath Government joined together. The first breaks Humberside county into unitary authorities, as recommended by the Local Government Commission for England. The second, contrary to the commission's recommendations, does not break up the North Yorkshire county council into unitary authorities but confers unitary status on York—but York with different boundaries. Nothing could better demonstrate the inconsistency and political prejudice that have characterised the reorganisation of local government. It shows yet again that the Government are motivated largely by malice against Labour councils.

Mr. David Rendel: The Government are motivated by malice not just against Labour councils but against local authorities in general.

Mr. Dobson: I think that there are degrees of malice.
Humberside has usually been controlled by Labour, at least when it was not led by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) who, as soon as he stopped being leader, decided that he wanted to abolish it. It will be broken up, whereas North Yorkshire county council, which, in normal circumstances has been Tory controlled, will not be broken up. York will be separated out, with boundaries which do not make sense and which practically no one supports.

Mr. John Townend: The hon. Gentleman talks about the political bias of the proposals. Is he aware that Hull district council, which has been Labour controlled ever


since I can remember, except for two years, strongly favours doing away with Humberside and getting back unitary powers for the city and county of Hull?

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we cannot have one intervention upon another.

Mr. Dobson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have never been beset in that way before. In a moment, I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bridlington.

Mr. McNamara: Further to what my hon. Friend said about the record of the hon. Member for Bridlington, is he aware that, for a brief moment, the hon. Gentleman also led Hull city council? Thereafter, we went from strength to strength and now only one member of his party is there.

Mr. Dobson: Gloating is contrary to my nature.

Mr. John Townend: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I point out that that statement is incorrect? I was chairman of the finance committee of Hull council, but never leader.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Dobson: I am glad that I did not gloat.
All that is a product of the deliberations of the Local Government Commission and the Secretary of State, who was supposed to be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. I must say that it was much more quasi that judicial. The break-up of Humberside gives independence back to the city of Kingston upon Hull—not before time. It should never have been taken away from Hull in the first place by a previous Tory Government. Hull city council would rather have wider boundaries. There is considerable support, not just within the Labour party in Hull, for Hull to have wider boundaries. Even the commission recognised that wider boundaries would have made more sense. They said that they recognised the merits of the argument but decided that the proposition was not popular, so did not recommend it.
If Tory Members think that this matter has been and gone and Hull could never be extended, I remind them that, on 25 October 1994, the Secretary of State did not rule out the extension of Hull's boundaries but said that, in due course, he proposed to direct the Commission to review the boundaries between East Yorkshire and Hull. Those who think that they have won that argument may find that they have not. We are asked tonight to decide boundaries which the Secretary of State proposes setting aside as soon as we have set them in place.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: There are clearly examples in Hull and the neighbouring authorities where houses or streets are divided by boundaries, and it is perfectly sensible to review those boundaries. Given the time scale, it is simply not possible for the commission to review them before the order is, I hope, passed by the House this evening. But that is what the Secretary of State will ask the commission to review and it is a matter of common sense.

Mr. Dobson: We do not know the time scale or whether the adjustments will be as large or small as the

Minister suggests. The Secretary of State asks us to agree an order on one set of boundaries while talking about changing them immediately afterwards. He threatens further changes, thereby sentencing certain areas to a further period of uncertainty, particularly as those within the city council's boundary will be unitary authorities and those outside—as in the case of East Yorkshire—will not.
That is not the only uncertainty because, as the Minister admitted, under the commission's proposals, part of Goole was to be the amazing Dales and Vales unitary authority. Despite its rhyming, it has, thankfully, disappeared as nobody supported the proposition for more than half a minute. When the Government first drafted the order, they changed that proposition in favour of transferring Goole to the Selby part of North Yorkshire which will be a two-tier authority. The Government produced a second draft order, but apparently they forgot about Goole, because it is not mentioned at all. The Secretary of State then announced that the Local Government Commission had been instructed to undertake a further review of Goole's fate. It implied that, for the next few months, Goole will be located—probably temporarily—in East Yorkshire and then it will "enter the new East Riding unitary authority".
In the context of this complex reorganisation of local government, Goole will be moved temporarily—we do not know for how long—into a unitary authority. However, as a result of further boundary changes while the reorganisation is taking place, it could be shifted into the area of a two-tier authority, thus becoming a lower tier authority again. I do not think that the Government are serious about trying to ensure that the reorganisation goes through with minimum impact on the services that the authorities concerned are supposed to provide.
It is insulting for the people of Goole to be treated as the fag-end of a local government reorganisation. They are being pushed about and shoved to one side until it is convenient for the Secretary of State to do something about their situation.
By any standards, Humberside county council had a good performance record and I think that anyone with any sense sympathises with the councillors and staff who worked hard in the area of service provision. The new authorities must be encouraged to perform. Hull is clearly capable of running itself, which it did for several hundred years. However, all of the new authorities will need to co-operate to provide the necessary Humber-wide planning and environmental policies. Everyone wishes them well, but they will be operating in difficult circumstances because of the boundaries and the uncertainties that the orders create.
That brings me to the second order, and I must declare an interest at this point. I was born and brought up in one of the villages on the outskirts of York. I went to school in York and I have a lot of family connections with that great city and also with East Riding, where I used to live. York, quite rightly, wants its independence, which a Tory Government should never have taken away.
However, the council does not want independence at any price and it believes that the massive extension of the city boundaries is too high a price to pay for York's independence. Proposals before the commission were to retain the present boundary, which would leave York with a population of about 100,000—three times as big as Rutland which is gaining independence—or to extend York's boundaries roughly to the ring road, which would


leave York with a population of about 125,000. Another alternative was to extend the boundary much further to the edge of the York planning area, which is known as Greater York, which would give York a population of 170,000.
Extending the boundary to form Greater York is an enormously unpopular proposal. York city council opposes it, as does Ryedale district council, Selby district council, Harrogate district council and North Yorkshire county council. Every parish council outside the ring road is opposed to the proposition. The Labour Member of Parliament for that area—my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley)—the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) also oppose the idea. Opposition to the preposterous idea that York should be extended in that way is not exactly a Labour racket.
The Local Government Commission—I shall make no further comments on its general stumbling incompetence—recommended the Greater York proposal in its document, but it did not offer a single word to justify extending York's boundary to form Greater York. It proposed a 900 per cent. increase in the city's area which would take the boundary beyond York's natural urban or suburban boundary.
York does not have three or four centres with rural patches in between. There has been gradual concentric expansion of York's urban areas and, if the boundary is to be extended, it should he extended to somewhere around the natural edge of those areas. The Greater York proposition takes in very rural areas. It leaves in some areas which are more rural than the five which were taken out at the behest of the hon. Member for Ryedale. I defy anyone to find a parish in England that is more rural than Kexby.
The people who live outside the boundaries of York do not see themselves as part of York and the people in York do not see themselves as part of York. I believe that the Local Government Commission may even—

Mr. Michael Brown: That is nonsense.

Mr. Dobson: I am sorry. The people of York do not consider the people outside the city to be part of York. I am sorry for that slip of the tongue.
There is some suspicion that the Local Government Commission did not know what it was recommending—or at least it did not know the basis of its recommendations. According to its own figures, it seems to have misunderstood the unpopularity of its proposals. It got the figures wrong in the first report. It said that only one in three of those affected were opposed to the boundary change. That was true of people living between the existing boundary and the ring road at that time, but the local government's figures, which were collected by MORI, showed that two out of three of those people living between the ring road and the proposed new boundary opposed that proposition.
Those figures were collected during the early stages of consultation when the picture was not as clear as it was after the final recommendation was made. Since then, public opinion has become clearer. Hon. Members who are familiar with the area will know that, if anything, it has hardened against any extension of the boundary, not just beyond the ring road but beyond York's present

boundaries. Strong support for York as an all-purpose authority remains, but support for the extension of its boundaries is small and it is diminishing. People living outside the ring road do not consider themselves to be part of York and, according to the commission's polling, fewer than one in three support the boundary extension.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, who has just left the Chamber, told the Craven Herald and Pioneer in November 1993 that
York is virtually certain to get its own all-purpose council".
He said that before there was any suggestion that the city's boundary would be extended. Perhaps the Minister, like the majority of people in York, believes that the city should retain its original boundary.

Mr. Dobson: I find it difficult to understand the mindset of Government Members.
In November 1994, the city council commissioned a MORI poll of a much larger sample than the survey conducted by the Local Government Commission. It also carried out a leaflet consultation exercise, whereby it sent questionnaires to the people concerned who were asked to complete and return them. Only 24 per cent. of those consulted in that way supported the idea of a Greater York. Within York, 41 per cent. of those surveyed wanted to retain the current boundaries and 36 per cent. supported the idea of a Greater York.
When the people who were affected by the Greater York extension were consulted, their rejection of the proposal was overwhelming. The MORI poll showed that 61 per cent. of those surveyed in the outer ring opposed the extension and 23 per cent. favoured it. The leaflet exercise—which had a remarkable 42 per cent. Return—showed that 80 per cent. of those surveyed opposed the extension and 30 per cent. supported it. In the districts which would be taken over from Ryedale district council, the MORI figures were 68 per cent. against and 17 per cent. in favour, with the leaflet method of consultation showing 86 per cent. against and 14 per cent. in favour.
In the Selby district, which contains two of the parishes which are closest to York—anybody who did not know would think that they were already part of York— Heslington and Fulford, the figures were only 47 per cent. against and 36 per cent. in favour.
The figures for some of the individual villages are quite remarkable. None of the villages in Ryedale outside the ring road had more than 12 per cent. in favour of being taken into York, and using the leaflet method, the lowest figure against the extension in any parish outside the ring road was 87 per cent. In Selby district, as I have mentioned, Fulford and Heslington—which would be incorporated into almost any sensible extension of York—were the only villages where as few as 50 per cent. were against the extension. Askham Bryan had 97 per cent. against and 3 per cent. in favour and Dunnington, where I was born, had 86 per cent. against and 14 per cent. in favour.
We should consider the Local Government Commission's views on how the popularity of proposals should be borne in mind. It stated:
The commission must balance the advantages of the proposed extension against the sense of community and expressed wishes of local residents".


It said that about York, where there is no doubt about the expressed wishes of local residents. In respect of Hull, it said:
In its consultation report, the commission recognises the merits of the argument for the extension, but on balance felt the weight of public opinion against expansion was too strong to disregard.
So it was too strong to disregard in respect of Hull, but apparently nothing can be so strong that it cannot be disregarded in respect of the expansion of York.
If we then take the weight that the commission itself claims it gives to public opinion, the chief executive of the commission wrote an article saying that, had there not been a Local Government Commission,
a new structure of local government would have been imposed on a largely apathetic public … I, for one, am glad that the Local Government Commission has undertaken its task in a very different way, which has produced recommendations enjoying solid local support and which has avoided the potentially expensive mistake of imposing an unwelcome new structure of local government on shire England.
The Minister of State, who is not here, said:
Where the commission comes up with a scheme which is endorsed by local community leaders and responds to a local sense of identity it is likely to be endorsed. However, where a recommendation appeals to defy natural gravity"—
whatever that may mean—
and be inconsistent with other recommendations it will earn a loud popular raspberry.
We have waited in vain to hear the raspberry on the proposition for the expansion of York.
If the Government do not like the polling data or the leaflet returns that have judged opinion in those areas, they have to admit that, since the proposition was put forward, 1,066 people have argued against the extension of York and 30 in favour; seven local authorities have made representations, none of them in favour; 26 parishes have made recommendations, none of them in favour and of 15 other representations, just one was in favour. People are saying quite loudly that they do not think that the shotgun marriage of York with the outlying villages should go through. The Minister should have further second thoughts.
The Government left out Shipton and Overton from Hambleton district; they left out Upper Helmsley, Gate Helmsley and Warthill from Ryedale district—and quite right, too. They now propose forcing into York—against the wishes of the people of York and their elected representatives and the elected representatives of every one of the districts and clearly against the wishes of the vast majority of people—Skelton, Wigginton, Haxby, Strenshall, Towthorpe, Earswick, Stockton-on-the-Forest, Holtby, Murton, Kexby, Dunnington, Elvington, Wheldrake, Deighton, Naburn, Bishopthorpe, Acaster Malbis, Copmanthorpe, Askham Bryan, Askham Richard, Rufforth, Hessay and Upper Poppleton. None of them wants to join; they all want to stay out.
I should emphasise that this is a Tory idea. It was not empire building by Labour-controlled York city council; it was simply put forward by the Tory machine carrying out these local government reorganisations.
To add insult to injury, the Government propose to change the voting system for York which, not from time immemorial, but for a damned long time, has had annual elections. As the outlying districts cannot be re-warded in

a way which would permit annual elections and still have sensible wards, the people of York, who are accustomed to being able to vote in or out their council or many of the councillors every year will be deprived of that.
The city council said that annual elections should continue. Last week, when I said that I thought that annual elections should continue as a principle, I was told that councils should be given a choice. York has expressed its choice, it wants annual elections, but that would not suit the Government, so it will not have them.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The commission recommended that there should be all-out elections, but if the new city and county of the York authority chooses a system of one third and passes the appropriate resolution, the Government will not stand in its way. We believe that the authority should decide. The hon. Gentleman is saying that part of the authority should decide. He is saying that only the old York city council should be responsible. We think that all the councillors on the new authority should have a say on whether it will be all-out elections or elections by thirds.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I believe that the law should be quite clear and there should be annual elections in every local authority in the country. That is right in principle.
What the Government are doing now is forcing people who have never lived in York to become part of York and they are insulting them by doing that. They are insulting the people of York by saying that the right to annual elections that they have had for all those years will be taken away. Just like the rest of the process, it is a total shambles. It is the product of a incompetent and badly conducted Local Government Commission and an even worse set of Ministers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the House of Madam Speaker's decision to limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes for the remainder of the debate.

Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), in a disarmingly tentative declaration of interest, reminded us that some members of his family are familiar with the part of Yorkshire that I represent. I hope that I am not disclosing a confidence in alleging that he may even have a brother who lives in the locality of Wheldrake—or at least some members of his family live in that part of the world. I cannot reciprocate by declaring an interest in that connection as I am not sure that any of them vote for me, but to that extent alone I differ from the hon. Gentleman's approach to the problem.
What lies behind the order in reality is not, as my hon. Friend the Minister keeps reiterating, advice or pressure from the Local Government Commission. It is certainly not the aspirations or expression of views of local people. The only reason behind what has been proposed is that old, dreadful and inhuman syndrome—the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. That is the only rational conclusion one can draw from the way in which the Government are proceeding in these orders.
On what the Local Government Commission has contributed to this sorry scenario, let me remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State why he cannot shelter


his proposals behind the skirts of the Local Government Commission, whatever one may think of the commission itself. In its preliminary report of June 1993, addressed incidentally "to local people", and in its final report to the Secretary of State in June 1994, the commission was essentially and unmistakably tentative about the way in which York's boundaries should be drawn. It stated:
York's boundaries should be enlarged if local people support the changes.
Local residents do not support the changes, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made perfectly clear. I, too, shall emphasise that point presently.
If local people do not support the changes, and if the Boundary Commission says that the proposals depend on the extent to which such support exists, why have the Government ignored this fundamental condition prerequisite and gone swanning off on their own? Admittedly, the commission preferred, again tentatively, a new boundary for York extended as proposed in the order, but I repeat that it was tentative. The essential need was to reflect what local people felt and wanted. In other words, the people, not the planners, were given priority by the commission. Why, then, have the Government not reflected that approach?
In relation to its tentative proposals, the commission stated:
However a proper balance must be struck between feelings of community, and the search for the most efficient form of local government that will meet the needs of the community.
Listening to my hon. Friend the Minister introduce the order relating to York, I was shocked to hear him put into the mouth of the Boundary Commission words which exactly reversed the priorities outlined in the above quotation. The Boundary Commission said that a
proper balance must be struck between feelings of community, and the search for the most efficient form of local government". 
My hon. Friend claimed that the commission said that what was sought was the most efficient form of local government which, as far as it could be, would be compatible with what local people want. The Boundary Commission made its first priority the identities and interests of local communities and the need to secure effective and convenient local government came second.
The Government have done a disservice to local government by putting the planners first and the people second. That essential imbalance is perverse and undesirable. The people in and around York have expressed their feelings about the way in which they want local government to be organised in their locality. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras vividly brought out the facts.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know of the local referendum to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred. In it, more than 32,000 valid votes were cast, the overwhelming majority—more than 80 per cent.—in favour of restricting the York city boundary and repudiating the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.
It is interesting and significant that the Boundary Commission itself, in paragraph 66 of its final report to the Secretary of State, said:
Bearing in mind that city extensions are usually strongly contested (as can be seen in the case of both Kingston upon Hull and Bristol) the Commission considers that the opposition to the proposed extension is relatively weak. Only 800 direct representations were received from the area that would be affected by the two boundary extensions.

I hesitate to cite a letter sent to me on 17 January by my hon. Friend the Minister because I do not think that he can have read it before he added his signature to it. The letter states:
However, whilst we recognise that there are pockets of strong local feeling—and this perhaps is not accurately reflected in the relatively low level of those who responded to the canvass you refer to in your letter—against extending the City's boundaries to include the major part of the Greater Planning Area, we remain convinced that the Commission's recommendation was correct.
My hon. Friend refers to a "relatively low level" of participation, but the Boundary Commission managed to get 800 people to respond to its canvas in its final report and then embarked on the path that we are now disputing. The poll to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred involved 32,000 people, but my hon. Friend the Minister talks about
pockets of strong local feeling … perhaps … not accurately reflected in the relatively low level of those who responded to the canvass".
What does my hon. Friend really believe is the basis for his seeking to shelter behind the skirts of the Boundary Commission in going ahead with these proposals? Does he honestly believe that, had the Boundary Commission received not 800 responses to its inquiry but 32,000—something approaching 42 per cent. of the electorate, way above the average level of participation in local government polls and getting on for the level of participation in parliamentary polls—the Local Government Commission would have recommended ignoring the feelings of local people and proceeding as proposed? No, it would not. My hon. Friend cannot shelter behind the local government boundary commission.
I shall not vote against the order only because my hon. Friend the Minister has been helpful and constructive about Humberside. I give him credit for that and appreciate his help in making certain that Goole did not come into the Selby district.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I must first apologise to the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) in his absence for wrongly having promoted him above his station and accused him of being leader of the Conservative majority on Hull city council. However, I must admit that I owe him a debt of gratitude as Townend's rent rise meant that my then marginal seat became safe, and Townend is a name that young mothers still use to urge their children to hurry home early and safely. He had the same distinction when leader of Humberside county council in that he cut services so much that, apart from one brief period of a hung council, Humberside, after Townend—like after Hull had had Townend—has remained Labour ever since. That brings me to the purpose of the debate.
Humberside was created out of malice and is being destroyed out of malice. It was created out of malice to try to defeat the strong Labour control in Hull, Grimsby and Scunthorpe. It was felt that going into the new county, using the excuse of an estuarial authority, would enable it to become Conservative controlled. That did not happen except for the one occasion when the hon. Member for Bridlington was leader of the Tory group.
The decision to abolish Humberside is being taken for exactly the same reason. It has been a very strong Labour council. Under its first leader, Harry Lewis, until its


present one, Maggie Smith, it has provided good, efficient and cost-effective education services, social services, transport, leisure and environmental services and good economic development. People can be proud of the county council, and that applies also to the people who have served it. But despite the attempts of the Labour group on that county council over a long period, and the great quality of the services that it produced, it never succeeded in capturing the public's imagination to gain the loyalty and support that I believe it was entitled to expect, although I have always supported the case for Hull being a unitary authority. I do not know whether it was the new name that rankled with the Yorkshire people from the old East Riding, and Lincolnshire people from north Lincolnshire, or whether it was the old northbank-southbank rivalries between the "Hully Gullies" and the "Lincolnshire Yellow Bellies", but, whatever it was, despite the best efforts of many of my county council colleagues, it never won that support.
Equally, however, as far as the Labour party is concerned, since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was Minister for the Environment in 1978 and the proposal of organic change was brought forward, the main large county boroughs, which had lost their status as a result of the Local Government Act 1972, had campaigned long and furiously to return to their old status and powers. Indeed, it was the policy of my party then—and still is—to have decentralised Westminster Government represented in strong regional authorities and to have strong unitary authorities for local government purposes.
It is an irony of fate that the order, with the exception of North Riding, or north Yorkshire, creates just the form of organisation that a future Labour Secretary of State may immediately implement to give Yorkshire its own regional authority and its strong local unitary authority, because the pattern of the old West Riding and East Riding is now of unitary authorities.
The attitude of the Government to Humberside has been particularly vindictive, but, having said that, the city of Hull has always wanted to return to its former glories. It is ready, willing and eager to seize that chance and opportunity. That has been shown overwhelmingly by the citizens of Hull and by the members of Hull city council. But it will not be an easy task for many of them, and those who were members of the old city council and who are standing as candidates for the new city council will find that many of the old powers that they once enjoyed have disappeared. They will no longer have responsibility for tertiary education, for example, and in many ways they will be only a cipher for the Government in the administration of rather than the creation of services. The new responsibilities that social services and education services have gained will be a burden that they will not have experienced over the past 20 years. It is something with which they will have to wrestle. Fortunately 12 existing members of the county council will be local government candidates in Hull. I am sure that their experience of administration of those services which they will bring to the posts will be welcomed by the new city council.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I merely reiterate the point that Humberside county council has been badly treated. It has been destroyed out of malice

by the Government, but I believe that Hull is entitled to and should have always maintained its role as an independent, strong unitary authority. Therefore, I welcome the creation of those powers for the city of Hull. I would have liked to see its boundaries extended. Over the years, I have often thought it wrong for people to earn their living in Hull, to use many of Hull's services, whether cultural or otherwise, its libraries, theatres and subsidised orchestras, and yet live outside the city boundary. It would have been right for them to have been brought in. One of the new city constituencies—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall)—will be Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle. It will be divided by a county boundary, contrary to the usual recommendations given to the parliamentary commissioners when drawing up constituency boundaries. I hope that it will be part of East Riding, which will come into the city of Hull. It is true, as the Minister who opened the debate said, that there will be little bits on the margins—little bits of housing estates, old school sites and so on. But more than that should come into the city.
I welcome the order in so far as it gives unitary status to Hull, but, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which will no doubt be repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will vote against the order for York.

Mr. John Greenway: I must tell the House that I shall be voting against the order tonight, and for two reasons: first to reflect the anger and betrayal that is felt by tens of thousands of my constituents at the proposed Greater York authority, as the opinion surveys referred to have made clear. Secondly, from the very start of the local government review, my opinion was that there should be no change in the structure of local government in North Yorkshire. The debate today has shown that no one has made any case in favour of a change. That includes York remaining part of the two-tier structure of North Yorkshire. The Ryedale district population is effectively chopped in half. I think that the figure is that 49.8 per cent. goes in and 50.2 per cent. stays out.
Although there is rejoicing that we have managed to save the county council from the worst excesses of the Local Government Commission's recommendations, there is grave concern that the residual part of Ryedale, which will remain within that two-tier structure, will have a small population and only 23 councillors to deal with an area of some 600 square miles. It will be a truly rural authority, and there may be some advantages in that; nevertheless, the people who have escaped going into Greater York are no happier about the overall position than those who are going into York.
When we reflect on the last two or three years of the local government review, few people—if any—will emerge with much credit. The Government's preferences were muddled. There was far too much of the nod and a wink, "We think that unitary is what you are going to end up with," kind of attitude. I cannot for the life of me see why we had to review North Yorkshire at all. By all means deal with Humberside, Avon, Cleveland, which seems to have been very popular with our colleagues affected by the changes, and the support for the Humberside order tonight contrasts with the lack of support from those affected by the North Yorkshire order,


but I just cannot see why we had to interfere with the two-tier structure of local government in North Yorkshire, which has worked extremely well. It is England's largest county.
The Association of District Councils encouraged all its members to opt for unitary status, even though it must have been patently obvious that most were unlikely to succeed on their existing boundaries. Of course, it is subject to caveats, which I am sure that Labour Members would want to tell me about. Both Labour and Liberal Democrat policy is to have unitary local government. That was a further encouragement.
On the Local Government Commission's recommendations, the proposal for a North Riding authority was seen and will for ever be seen as a sick joke. It was not the North Riding of old—nothing like it. What was proposed was a unitary authority, measuring 100 miles from its western boundary to its eastern boundary on the edge of the North sea, in the south-eastern corner of my constituency. The commission had the audacity to say that that would bring local government closer to the people. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Yorkshire people can see through that kind of nonsense, and in this instance they did.
It was in regard to public opinion surveys that local authorities in North Yorkshire made their greatest mistake. When it was patently obvious that we would end up with a mess, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and I had warned from the start, what did the authorities do? They embarked on opinion surveys in an attempt to prove that what people wanted was a York unitary area extending to the ring road rather than to the six-mile greater York boundary. That has been the cause of all the trouble. We battled to save the county council, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State deserves credit for having listened to our arguments and pleas. I feel that he has received much unjustified criticism.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby said that it was not possible to hide behind the skirts of the Local Government Commission. It seems to me, however, that debates such as this are really about boundaries rather than the principle of whether Yorkshire should be a unitary area. We heard last week—and again today—that Bristol and Hull should have wider boundaries. It is extraordinary to oppose the commission's proposal for Hull because the boundaries are too tight and then oppose the York order because they are too wide, as the Labour party is doing. That is sheer humbug and hypocrisy.
All that the Minister can say with his hand on his; heart is that the commission recommended the boundaries for Hull and York—subject to the five parishes that he took out at my request—and he accepted its recommendation. In that regard, I differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. Why did the commission recommend a bigger boundary for York? It was because it was not a viable unitary authority with its existing boundary. That is undoubtedly true: everyone knows that the boundary is too tight.
I believe that we could have taken more of the villages out, but there has been no cohesive agreement among all the local authorities on what the boundary ought to be. All that people say now is, "Leave the boundary where it is." York city council, however, argued for the ring road boundary month in and month out throughout the review. Anyone who considers what it would mean for local

government in York will realise that the ring road boundary would represent the worst of all possible worlds, not least because the three very successful comprehensive schools in southern Ryedale are just inside the ring road but most of the children who attend them live outside it. That is no basis for a sustainable education policy.
I have a heavy heart tonight. We have ended up with the mess and unpopularity that some of us predicted. Perhaps we have not argued against it strongly enough since the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but it was clear to many of us that the die had been cast, and that—given the controversy about the review in other parts of the country—it would be extremely difficult to change my right hon. Friend's mind about York being a unitary authority at all. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows full well, however, I asked him about six times if he would change his mind.
This is a massive leap in the dark. Will it work? Well, assuming that the order is approved, tomorrow morning we must start the process of making it work. There are a good many unanswered questions about education, social services, libraries and other financial matters that have not even been considered; there is much work to be done, and people of calibre must be elected to the new body to ensure that it does not prove to be the disaster that many of its opponents fear that it will be.
Tonight, however, is the time for me to reflect the views of my constituents. There is great anger in my constituency, and because of that—although I shall go into the Lobby with the Labour party with a heavy heart, given that Labour opposes the measure simply because it did not secure the boundary that it wanted—I shall oppose the order.

Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate because it is, in a sense, unique.
When I arrived this evening, I expected the debate to be unique for two reasons. First, we were considering two orders jointly for the first time. I feel that that was an unfortunate decision, partly because it means that on average each order has been given rather less time than any previous orders. I am not sure why the Government have it in for Humberside and North Yorkshire, which seem to me to be just as important as other areas and should be given an equal amount of debating time—and that means considering them separately.
Secondly, for the first time we are discussing an area part of which will be left as a two-tier authority but from which will be taken—if the order is approved—a main town or city that will become a unitary authority. Although this is the first occasion on which we have discussed such a case, no doubt instances involving other areas will be debated in the near future. However, this instance presents particular difficulties and we could have done with a full-length debate on it.
I have subsequently realised, however, that those are not the only two unique aspects of the debate. Another important aspect is that for the first time Conservative Members are speaking out against the Government's position, plainly and effectively. That must make your job rather difficult, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that you like to call hon. Members alternately to put opposing sides


of the argument, but at present it seems that all the speakers oppose the North Yorkshire order, and that may well continue until the Minister winds up.
I will begin with the Humberside order, partly because I think that in many ways it is the easier one to deal with. One or two objections can be made to it, in particular the usual complaint about the first tranche authorities—that there was never enough consultation to establish what people really wanted, and it is therefore difficult for the House to decide how much support there is one way or the other. There is also the issue of staffing and the inadequacy of the compensation regulations. Although that issue has been raised before, it will count against the passing of the Humberside order tonight.
There are, however, many points in favour of the order. One which has not been raised sufficiently so far is the possibility of long-term savings. It is clear from the commission's report that considerable savings could be made from the move to a unitary system, and that there will be a good and short pay-back term to compensate for the transitional costs which will inevitably be incurred. There is also strong evidence of popular support for the abolition of Humberside. Like Avon and Cleveland, it was an artificial creation to begin with; it has never been loved and there will be no shortage of supporters for its abolition. A MORI poll showed that some 64 per cent. of people in the area were in favour of unitary authorities in principle, and of the 19,741 direct responses to the commission some 71 per cent. favoured a unitary solution. That is a very good proportion.
North Yorkshire is a more significant case. Most of the area will remain a two-tier authority. The Liberal Democrats, however, are not necessarily against taking out a major town or city and making it into a unitary authority, if that is the right thing to do in a particular case, as long as we consider each case on its merits. The main argument tonight, therefore, is not about the principle of taking out one town or city and making it into a unitary authority, but about whether the boundaries suggested for the new York authority are correct or have been expanded too far. As has already been mentioned in relation to Hull, the arguments in favour of the new York authority are that the people who depend on facilities in York should be part of the authority which governs that city and should have to pay for those facilities. If we were to apply that principle all over the country, however, the boundaries of London, for example, would be extended well beyond Newbury. People all over the country use facilities in major towns and cities but are not part of the authority which directly governs those towns or cities. That is therefore a weak argument in favour of expanding the boundaries of York.
There are nevertheless a number of arguments against the order. First, a difficulty exists in relation to strategic services, particularly where a two-tier authority—this is a new point which has not been debated in the House before—surrounds or nearly surrounds a unitary town or city. The Government have not adequately argued their case to persuade us that such strategic services could be properly and effectively managed.
Secondly, fears have been raised, as mentioned by the Minister, that York city might not provide the necessary funding for the Yorkshire museum. The Government have not adequately answered those fears so far tonight.
Thirdly, the fear exists—here I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)—that what remains of Ryedale district in particular and, to some extent, of the other districts from which portions are being chopped away, will be too small to be effective and will be greatly disadvantaged. I understand that Ryedale district will more or less be cut in half in population terms to some 46,000, which will make it one of the smallest districts in England, and the smallest districts face difficulties which may also harm Ryedale.
Fourthly—this has been mentioned several times and is the heart of the debate—there is the question of the gross lack of public support for the recommendations. Even the commission admitted that it could find only about 33 per cent. of people in favour of the expanded boundaries of York. The lord mayor has made it clear that he is against the order. The MORI poll made it clear that support for an expanded unitary York in a two-tier Yorkshire stood at only about 8 per cent.—a minimal level for the Government to put the order through. In addition, 64 per cent. of the population outside the ring road preferred to remain outside the new boundaries for an expanded York.
A significant level of feeling exists against the order. It is no surprise, therefore, that a number of Conservative Members representing seats in the area have felt it necessary to tell the Minister that they cannot support him tonight.
Overall, Liberal Democrat Members will support the people of Humberside in their wish to see Humberside abolished. I am sure that that is right. We shall be watching with interest to see which Labour Members support the people of Humberside, who want the order to go through tonight. We shall also be supporting the people of North Yorkshire, who do not want the order relating to their region to go through tonight. We shall be voting against that order and we shall be interested to see which Conservative Members join the hon. Member for Ryedale, who has clearly made his intentions known, in voting against it, too.
The hon. Member for Ryedale, however, blamed local councils for having failed to persuade the Government to change their mind on the order. With a Government who have a technical minority in the House, he should have been able to ensure that enough hon. Members voted against the order to make sure that it fell. The people of North Yorkshire will not lightly forgive a Government who have turned their back on the wishes of local people, especially if—as I hope will happen—hon. Members who were elected to represent their views refuse to support the Government in the Division Lobby tonight. The people of North Yorkshire will doubtless be watching carefully to see how those representatives vote.

Mr. Michael Brown: I assure the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that I shall be speaking with enthusiasm in favour of the abolition of Humberside. I came to the House 16 years ago. I was adopted as a prospective parliamentary candidate in south Humberside 19 years ago. There has not been a day of my waking life in that incarnation when I have not railed against the existence of the county of Humberside. I accept that honourable people of all the political parties serve and have served for the benefit of the people who live in that region, but the institutions, which I readily accept were wrongly set up by my party some 24 years


ago, were fundamentally flawed. The local people of Lincolnshire are divided culturally, socially, politically and economically by that great River Humber that separates us forever from Yorkshire.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a Yorkshireman. You and the rest of your colleagues who come from Yorkshire recognise the pride that goes with being from Yorkshire, just as we from Lincolnshire recognise the pride that goes with being a yellow belly from Lincolnshire. One may throw hundreds of millions of pounds into fusing the East Riding of Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire together by means of the Humber bridge, but the River Humber ensures that that simply has not worked and never will work.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for coming to the decision that Humberside must finally go. When Minister of State in 1989, he rightly identified the fact that the people of Humberside did not like that county, and he instructed the old Local Government Boundary Commission to investigate the case for returning district councils back to their old county councils. In 1990–91, that commission recommended that the borough councils of Great Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Scunthorpe and Glanford should be transferred as district councils in the county of Lincolnshire.

Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I shall not give way. I have no disrespect for the hon. Gentleman, who represents very well the constituency of Glanford and Scunthorpe, but we are under pressure of time and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) took up nearly 40 minutes of time earlier, which has effectively cut the number of speeches in the debate.
In my constituency, great support existed for those recommendations in 1990–91, which I put to the Local Government Boundary Commission. But Glanford, Scunthorpe and Great Grimsby borough councils thought that there should be unitary authorities. I accept the likelihood that Great Grimsby borough council and Cleethorpes borough council will work together well as an entity. Although friendly rivalry exists between Grimsby and Cleethorpes, we must acknowledge and accept that the region has local cultural institutions and that it can work, whichever political party is elected by voters. It will be possible for local people to have confidence in the institutions that will be created in Grimsby and Cleethorpes.
The people of Glanford and the borough council there want to have a unitary authority with the borough of Scunthorpe and the Isle of Axholme. I opposed that originally. We should have had district councils in the county of Lincolnshire, but I accepted their wish. There is some feeling, which my hon. Friend the Minister touched on in his speech, that electoral arrangements have not yet been correctly sorted out. However, I accept, although Glanford borough council does not, that if we refer the matter back to the Local Government Commission, we shall not pass the orders in time for elections to take place this year, and so we shall not get rid of the wretched, dreaded and hated Humberside county council next year.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was right to identify the case for the unitary authority structure. I accept that county councillors on all

sides of Humberside county council have played their part as best they can, in the finest tradition of public service. My point is that the institution of the county council was fundamentally flawed. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was good enough to recognise that the city of Hull wanted, deserved and will now get a unitary authority. I am not sufficiently well versed in the local argument about boundaries and it is for the hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Members representing neighbouring areas, to make representations about that. The fundamental structure seems to make sense in Hull, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. In Glanford and Scunthorpe there should also be the opportunity for a good working relationship that will operate effectively.
I want to see the word "Humberside" expunged from the English language. I never again want to hear anybody refer to the airport in my constituency in Lincolnshire as Humberside airport. I never want to switch on my radio and listen to a thing called Radio Humberside. Once we have expunged that word from the English language, we shall have to ensure that the airport is renamed to reflect the desires and wishes of the local people. We want to have a radio station that will cover north Lincolnshire and north-east Lincolnshire but that is not referred to as Radio Humberside. I hope that the broadcasting authorities at that station will listen to my words or at least broadcast them to the people.
In 1992, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, "Whoever heard of Len Hutton turning out to play for Humberside?" My hon. Friend the Minister—he has been my good friend over many years and was a good and forthright Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment—understands local government and the problems of local government in my area. At long last, it falls to him to make this announcement, which will lead to him being the toast of north Lincolnshire and north-east Lincolnshire when we pass the order at 16 minutes past 10 o'clock.
Humberside has never been popular in my constituency. There is no support for that county. There is the prospect of an excellent working relationship between Cleethorpes and Grimbsy. One must recognise that it is impossible to get from one part of my constituency to the other without going through Great Grimsby, a town for which I have the highest regard. Great Grimsby's football club ground is in Cleethorpes. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I are great supporters of that football team and we recognise that there is a closeness of community between the two councils. I was delighted when I heard that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, even if he cannot bring himself to vote in our Lobby, will not vote with his hon. Friends. I pay tribute to the sincere way in which he has stood up for the interests of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes in this debate.
The sentence of death has been hanging over Humberside for far too long. It is time to carry out the final execution.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will be delighted to know that BBC Radio Humberside is broadcasting his remarks live this evening.
York city council as it currently exists is an outstanding local authority. Since Labour gained control of the council 10 years ago, it has been a leader and has been


acknowledged as such by the Government. It invented the citizens charter—it was the first public body to introduce it—which became the Prime Minister's flagship policy during the election. That policy has since faded from the Government's policy objectives, but not from the city council's.
It would be nice to believe that the debate and vote tonight would focus not on whether the Conservative party or the Labour party would gain from this local government boundary change but on whether it would make for more effective local government. The question of effectiveness was addressed by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) in an Adjournment debate in July last year. He said:
One of the best ways of ensuring that local government is effective is having local authorities that people identify with and feel committed to."—[Official Report, 7 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 559–60.]
In a written question that the Under-Secretary answered last week, I asked how many people had made representations to the Minister's Department in favour of the Government's proposal for York and how many were against. Thirty individual members of the public have written to the Department of the Environment expressing support, compared with 1,066 who have written in against the proposal. Among local authorities, none have supported the Government's proposal and seven have come out against. Among parish councils, none has come out in favour of the Government's proposal and 26 have come out against. Among all the other organisations that have made representations, only one has supported the Government's proposal. In total, 31 individuals or bodies support the Government and 1,114 have made representations telling the Government that they have got it wrong.
The Secretary of State said that he is in favour of creating authorities with which people can identify and to which they feel committed. That is not what he is doing in north Yorkshire with this order. Last week, the Department of the Environment replied to the Yorkshire Local Councils Association, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is vice-president. The letter said:
Ministers recognise that there are pockets of strong local feeling against extending York's boundary".
Because an official wrote that letter, I can say what the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) could not say when he attributed those words to the Minister. That statement is a lie. There are not pockets of opposition, there is massive opposition from every single one of the wards beyond the York city ring road which are being forced against their residents' expressed will to join the city of York.
The ward beyond the ring road that came closest to voting in favour of joining the city of York was Haxby. In the referendum run by the Electoral Reform Society, 43 people in that ward voted against moving into York and three voted for. More typical was the ward of Wiggington in which 102 people voted against being absorbed into the city of York and none voted in favour. Another was New Earswick and Huntington in which 199 voted against and none voted in favour. Those figures were endorsed throughout the greater York area by a referendum carried out independently by the Electoral

Reform Society, in which more than 80 per cent. of the local population said that they did not want to be included in York. One ward only, which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned and which is on the border of York, voted in favour of amalgamation with York.
The Government's decision shows contempt for public opinion in north Yorkshire and it ignores the requirements of the Local Government Act 1992, which, in a written answer in November the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), described as follows:
The Local Government Act 1992 requires the Local Government Commission to have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities… Public opinion is one important test of this."—[Official Report, 2 November 1994; Vol. 248, c. 1151.]
In another place, in a debate on the Cleveland order last month, Lord Ullswater, said:
In all the tests of public opinion the four unitary option has been more popular than the existing system". 
He used that to argue for the four-unitary option and, quoting a press release, said:
It really is time they accepted the decision of local people".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 1995; Vol. 560, c. 960.]
The expression of view from local people in north Yorkshire is far clearer than ever it was in Cleveland. It is high time that Ministers applied their own dictum to their own actions and reflected public opinion.
The Government's proposal is inconsistent with decisions that they have taken in other parts of country. York is the only authority in the country to be given unitary status on extended boundaries. In every other case where a unitary proposal has been endorsed by the Government, it has been on the existing boundaries of one or more than one local authority.
Nor is it the case, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, that York, in its existing boundaries, would not be viable as a local authority. The following authorities, which all have broadly the same or smaller populations as the present city of York, have been given unitary status: Bedford, Reading, Slough, Hartlepool, Torbay, Poole, Darlington and the Isle of Wight. Rutland has unitary status with a population of 33,400 people.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the Commission's proposals with the proposals that the Government have decided on and have proposed. I should like to make that perfectly clear.

Mr. Bayley: With respect to the Minister, I am not confusing them at all. I said that, of the Government's proposals, not one has been similar to York, where the Government have combined an existing local authority with bites of two or three other local authorities. That has not happened in any other case. The York decision is inconsistent with all the other decisions that the Government have brought to the House.
The Under-Secretary said that the five parishes, which the Local Government Commission said should be included in Greater York, but which he decided should be excluded, were significantly different from all the other parishes and wards to be included because of their rural characteristics. Shipton parish, which has been excluded by the Minister despite what the Local Government Commission said, has a population density of 0.87 people per hectare. Kexby parish, which the Minister said should


be included because—presumably—it does not share the same rural characteristics, has a density of 0.12 people per hectare. It is seven times more rural than the parish that the Minister has excluded. The comparison between rural wards and urban York is quite staggering. The rural wards as a whole have about the same population density as the five parishes which have been excluded: 1.02 persons per hectare. In urban York, the present city area, the population density is 35.29 people per hectare.
The Government are simply picking and choosing parishes and wards for their own purposes. The Government's proposals for north Yorkshire as a whole and for the city of York ignore—indeed, fly in the face of—the Local Government Commission's proposals, they are inconsistent with the Government's decisions elsewhere and they are incompatible with public opinion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. James Cran: I am very pleased to rise to support the Humberside (Structural Change) Order, although not without—I must make it clear—a little hesitation, because I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary realises the opposition north of the Humber to the last-minute decision to include Goole in the proposed East Yorkshire county council. None the less, I support the order simply because I have to recognise what most of my constituents have been saying for some considerable time, indeed, ever since I was elected—that they are simply opposed to the entity called Humberside county council.
I cannot quite match the colour and malice brought to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), but he was absolutely correct. There has been absolutely no loyalty to Humberside county council. I have discovered that all my constituents relate not to Humberside county council but to the borough of Beverley. If asked, most of them seem to think that the borough of Beverley has heretofore delivered all the services that Humberside county council is said to deliver. That simply shows that my constituents would really have liked single-tier, all-purpose local government based on the district and the borough of Beverley.
Be that as it may, I entirely agree with the Opposition Members who said that the creation of Humberside was artificial. They pointed out that a Conservative Government were responsible for that artificial creation. That is absolutely correct. There is no doubt about the fact that the wrong decision was made then. It seems only fitting, therefore, that it is a Conservative Government who are undoing the wrong that was committed then.
Although Opposition Members may not like to hear this, I must say—

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cran: I do not intend to give way, as I have only 10 minutes in which to make my speech.
My constituents do not like the high-spending propensity of Humberside county council. My constituents consider themselves to be the paymasters of that council and they do not like it. Moreover, the political leadership of Humberside county council has been extraordinarily poor in the time that I have observed it.

However, I met the chief executive of Humberside county council in Central Lobby before the debate and I must pay tribute to the officers and staff of Humberside county council who have been of an extremely high order. I look to see the easy translation of most of them from the council we do not want to the one that we do want—East Yorkshire county council.
The Local Government Commission was absolutely right, therefore, to recommend abolition. I would have preferred single-tier, all-purpose local government based on the district with an expanded borough of Beverley, because that is what my constituents wanted and relate to. However, we will gladly accept an East Yorkshire county council and my colleagues in Beverley constituency will work very hard to make it a success, whereas Humberside county council could never be made a success.
I agree with the Local Government Commission, which said that there will be substantial service improvements. In particular, I am looking for improvements for my constituency in education. When I examine the county council's decisions, I discover that most capital spending on education goes not to my constituency but to most of the constituencies south of the river. With an East Yorkshire county council, I would expect more capital spending on education in my constituency.
The reform is worth while and extremely popular in East Yorkshire and I particularly want to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), because he has been perfectly willing to listen to all opinions. His door has been open to me and to my colleagues from Beverley. I particularly thank him for the fact that he rejected the expansionary tendencies of the city of Hull.
I noted that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) tried to sow a little discord by saying that there was to be a rather larger view of the boundaries of Hull. I believe what the Minister said. He said that the review of the boundaries is to be a minor one and not major. We look forward to that occurring fairly quickly.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cran: No, I do not have time.
The great city of Hull wanted the suburb of Haltemprice so that Haltemprice could act as the paymaster for that great city. I am delighted that the Government have rejected that idea.
All this said, my hon. Friend the Minister will be expecting me to say that there is just one cloud in an otherwise cloudless sky. He knows that I do not understand the Secretary of State's decision to include Goole within the boundaries of East Yorkshire county council; nor do my constituents. That was not recommended by the Local Government Commission—for good reasons, which other hon. Members explained.
As hon. Gentlemen said, before 1974 Goole was in the West Riding; it has never been in East Yorkshire. It is separated from that area by the River Ouse, and has little, if any, community of interest with East Yorkshire. It is, of course, an industrial port, and a successful and good one, but East Yorkshire consists of market towns and rural areas, so there is little community of interest.
I remind the House that in the first two drafts of the order Goole was not included within the boundaries of East Yorkshire county council. On 8 February, the Secretary of State changed his mind "in the light of representations received."

Mr. John Greenway: Yes.

Mr. Cran: I note what my hon. Friend says. But all I ask the Minister is: from where did those representations come? That is all that we want to know in my constituency. What was said? I hope that the decision did not stem from a threat of judicial review by Selby.
The position has been at least partially retrieved by the Secretary of State's decision that there will be a review of the boundaries between Goole and its neighbours. That must be done in as short a time as possible, for reasons that have already been explained by others—the uncertainty and instability not only for East Yorkshire county council but for the good people of Goole. Where are they to go? Clearly that has to be decided quickly. Will the Minister say a little more about the timing, and the how and when? Once the Boundary Commission has made recommendations, whatever those recommendations are, how will they be implemented and when? 
In summary, for I must be close to my time limit, I shall support the order because I want to see an end to Humberside county council. I say that with no malice; I simply think that it has not worked. None of my constituents looks to it for services, and I want the riding of East Yorkshire to be reinstated. I would, however, repeat that we should like a speedy decision on where Goole will go, and when.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Most of what we are debating is another example of Tory folly, in which the Minister comes to us, without an apology or admission of error in any respect, to reverse a Conservative Government policy of 25 years ago—the Peter Walker memorial system of government. Peter Walker came to us as a penniless barefoot refugee from the City, where he had been Jim Slater's dog walker, to reform the whole system of local government. He imposed a new structure on us in Grimsby, not only against our will but against the wishes of the people on the south bank, and brought the two banks together as if they were leftover bits of a jigsaw puzzle, into a Humberside county that we never wanted in the first place.
Grimsby Labour party, and Grimsby's present Member of Parliament, have provided the only consistent voices in the whole debate. We have consistently said that power should be returned to unitary authorities on the south bank and that Humberside should be dismantled, and we are the only people who have said that throughout.
Now, after 25 years, when the county has woven the two banks together and it is working well, when careers have been built on it and lives have been devoted to it, and when a whole series of people have worked well to build up a good authority, along come the Government saying, "We have changed our mind; we are going to scrap it. We have changed our mind on that issue, as on most other issues, and now we are setting out to destroy what we created in the first place." 
I wonder how much the whole exercise has cost—the setting up, the running and the dismantling of Humberside after 25 years of Tory folly. The Government consistently say that they have no money for any useful social purpose, but they seem to have endless money to pour out to clear up the consequences of their own folly and misguided decisions.
The reform of local government has been a mess. It has taken place under Sir John Banham, who is a misguided missile—an Iraqi Scud missile—when it comes to decision making, and is reforming local government on a Yugoslavian model. Once again, Labour will have to clear up the mess by setting up unitary authorities and regional governments above them to give us an effective system of local government.
The reform has been a piece of wilful vandalism. It has not come from the desire of the Government to listen to the people, the desire to create efficient units or the desire to give the units optimum size. It is not a carefully thought-out reform, based on a full analysis. It is a piece of pure political prejudice, as all Conservative Members have been saying. They hate Humberside because it has been an efficient, Labour-controlled authority which has provided good services for the people of Humberside. Their real accusation against the council is that it has been Labour controlled and has done a good deal for the people of the area.
Look at Humberside's record on education. School budgets have been kept at 6 per cent. ahead of the standard spending assessment, which is why very few schools in Humberside have opted out. Social services, trading standards, development, transport, leisure, the police and the fire service have all done well in Humberside.
I come to praise Humberside, but also to bury it, because the expertise to which I have referred will now be dispersed. The reform is being carried out with the same Gradgrind, mean-minded and petty-minded brutality that typifies the Government. Some 36,000 staff have been treated abominably by the Government. They are getting not 82 weeks' redundancy, as staff involved in other local government reforms have done, but 66 weeks. The provision is only £50 million for all the areas, but Humberside alone calculates that its costs will be £25 million.
Too many costs will fall on the successor authorities, which will be crippled with a burden of debt. The successor authorities—rightly, in my view—have promised a 100 per cent. take-up of staff. Will the Government make a proper financial provision to allow them to carry through an effective transition? The SSAs will need to be revised appropriately to allow us to develop the same efficient and effective services which Humberside has provided. Only the Government can make proper provision for that. We do not want council services strangled by the council tax, which penalises any small increase in expenditure by a much bigger increase in council tax. On top of that, the council tax has a capping system which cripples local authority spending.
We cannot maintain the same quality of services unless the Government work with us and help us. It will be impossible to carry through an effective reform of local government while trying to cripple local government spending in the way in which the Government will do with their stringent controls. If we have unitary authorities—and I want them—they must be allowed to


live up to the high standard set by Humberside by working with the Government. The Government must help them, and not try to strangle them. The relationship between central Government and local government should be one of co-operation, and not a war. We should not have the litany of blame which central Government impose on local Government.
I have been consistent, as have Grimsby Labour party and Grimsby council, in wanting a unitary authority. In my evidence to the commission, I asked for exactly what we have got, and it was very good of the commission to reproduce my evidence as its report. That was a sensible move on its part and it was the only sensible part of the report, I might add. Grimsby council, Cleethorpes council, all political parties and the people want this unitary status for our area.
I could even vote for the order, despite the fact that the Opposition are on a 2.75 line Whip, which is known on this side of the House as the Hartlepool Whip. I could vote for it, were it not for the fact that it has been done in such a mean, nasty and Gradgrind way by the Government. As it is, I shall abstain, but I shall abstain enthusiastically because we are getting what we wanted in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. We are getting a Lincolnshire identification, we will have control of our own destinies and we will have an intimate and accountable unit Of local government which is close to the people and is well-served by good councillors. We have the benefit of starting out with huge good will, which Humberside never started out with. As a unitary authority, we are moving up in the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker—up to the big league. This is professional stuff.
In Grimsby and Cleethorpes, we are certainly moving up to face the challenge of providing the same quality of services that Humberside provided to our people and trying to do better than Humberside. It is a challenge—an exciting opportunity. After 20 years of being run from somewhere else, we are able to take control and to be masters of our own destiny, which is a very exciting prospect.
If the Government let us carry this through effectively, we will take control and we will serve the people. We want to co-operate. That is why it is important for the Government to co-operate and allow us to carry through the logic of what they are imposing in the order.
Together, Grimsby and Cleethorpes, will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of Peter Walker's funeral pyre, which we are igniting tonight. We will rise, and it is more than time that we did, so let us go forward together, building on Humberside's achievement, but doing better.

Mr. Robert Banks: I find it confusing to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) because, on the one hand, he says that he has got what he wants but, on the other, he is not prepared to vote for it. That seems rather two-faced. 
When the review began in September 1992, views from local authorities and other interests in Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire were canvassed. By December of that year, the draft recommendations in the consultation reports were produced for further consultation. Those were published in June 1993 and at that stage we went through an "unprecedented consultation programme", to quote the concluding report of the local government commissioners.
That consultation exercise ran through until September of that year and residents, public bodies, local authorities, Members of Parliament and the Audit Commission were consulted. In total, the Local Government Commission heard from about 36,500 residents and received 4,500 letters. Also, 8,000 questionnaire forms were returned and 150,000 leaflets delivered to various people. In a sense, that canvas was disappointing, because the figures are not especially large for the areas and the number of people concerned.
As the debate on what sort of future local government would have grew, especially in North Yorkshire, I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that it was felt that there was pressure for unitary authorities to be established. That was not initially the case, but it became the order of the day at a later stage in the second consultation process.
In short, local councils, such as my own Harrogate borough council, not unnaturally voiced themselves vociferously for becoming unitary authorities. Similarly, North Yorkshire county council—threatened by the unitary authority process—lobbied for the status quo. I got the impression that councillors and council officials were lobbying for their own benefit and survival. I do not doubt that that was the case.
At that stage, my position was that we had to listen to what people had to say and that we should move to a different form of local government only when it was proved that the local people demanded a change and knew what they wanted.
Significantly, the striking signal that the report of the Local Government Commission reiterated was people's reference—again and again—back to the ridings. The report states:
In north Yorkshire there is a very strong affiliation with the Ridings (and an even stronger one with Yorkshire as a whole to which 55 per cent. of respondents feel they belong very strongly).
Without any question of a doubt, I sense that to be the case.
The report continues with a reference to community identity and interests and says:
However, the strength of feeling towards both Yorkshire and the Ridings informs the Commission's approach to reviewing local government structures north of the Humber.
Having listened to all that opinion, the Local Government Commission got it hopelessly wrong at that point. Its proposals for Harrogate were for a merger, as has been said earlier, into unitary status of the districts of Craven, Harrogate, Selby and Goole, taken from Boothferry district, to be named the "West Riding (Dales and Vale) of Yorkshire". There was universal condemnation and ridicule, and I shared in that. No one in his right mind
could conceivably have come up with that suggestion. Similarly, the North Riding unitary authority never got off the ground and was never acceptable.
Today's order results from strong representations for the status quo, retaining as it does North Yorkshire county council. One receives little thanks from North Yorkshire county council for battling on its behalf at the time that the proposals were made.
We have spent a great deal of time discussing the expansion of the city of York, but there is a good case for the new York authority to be a unitary authority. The question arises of where its boundaries should be. The proposal is that the areas of Nether Poppleton and Upper


Poppleton, which includes Rufforth, Hessay and Knapton villages, in my constituency, should be taken into Greater York and the new authority.
My opinion about that has always been that we needed to listen to what people had to say. It was interesting to read the results of the MORI poll, because it revealed that, in the village of Nether Poppleton, 46 per cent. of people questioned were in favour of merging into Greater York, whereas 35 per cent. preferred the status quo. The next-door village of Upper Poppleton differed, a margin of 6 per cent. wishing to be outside the new York authority—46 per cent. for the status quo and 40 per cent. for joining Greater York. Leaflet responses in both those areas were in favour of the status quo.
We must ask ourselves why people did not want to merge into York. I do not think that anyone has considered what rankled with those people that made them want to stay where they were. Some wanted to go in and some did not want to go in. It has not been determined whether that was because they wanted to get away from Harrogate borough council or whether it was because they felt an affiliation with the schools, the shopping and the employment and a natural affinity towards York as a result of being so close to the boundary of York.
I have a sense that there is a fear that, by being part of Greater York, those people will be engulfed and the character of their villages will be snuffed out by future development, which will involve them in a great urban sprawl. Of course there are green-belt areas and there is protection, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give further evidence that urbanisation of those areas will not take place. They must be protected from that awful sprawling factor.
The Secretary of State adopted the opinion, at a later date, that the name of North Yorkshire county council should be changed to the "County of the North Riding of Yorkshire". In a sense, he was reflecting the county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, and I thought that it was a reasonable idea. In fact, the chorus of disapprobation that resulted was as loud as it might have been if we had overnight decided that North Yorkshire county council should be done away with. Instead of that, one was suggesting that an extra name be added to the title.
Let us bear in mind the fact that a riding is defined as the third part of a shire—after all, it would be the second part of it—and the ridings were established by the Danes in the latter half of the ninth century. The word derives from the old Norse word for the third part, "thrithing", which became "riding", and the term remained with us until the reorganisation of 1974. It therefore appeared quite a reasonable thing, did it not, to want to use that terminology to put back the historic character that had distinguished North Yorkshire? 
North Yorkshire county council reacted in an incredible way. The chief executive issued a personal press release, headed
Riding roughshod over a million pounds". 
The chief executive reckoned that the change of name would cost £1 million. Anyone in his right mind would have asked, "Has the council gone out of its mind, even to contemplate paying such a large sum?" That included signs and the livery of approximately 1,000 vehicles, which could have had a sticker for £30 or a total respray

for £2,000. Clearly, the figure was raised for political reasons to embarrass the Government and get rid of the name "riding". Many people will, when they come to think about it, regret that. If a change is to be made, it is done sensibly by natural wastage, replenishing stocks where necessary, and as cheaply as possible. Nobody expected North Yorkshire county council to change its name to North Yorkshire Riding council overnight. That orchestration has lost us the character and attractiveness that distinguishes North Yorkshire from other local authorities in the rest of England.
Last year, the York museum had 110,000 visitors and the previous year it had 256,000 visitors, only 3 per cent. of whom came from York. However, it receives £600,000—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Mr. Gunnell.

Mr. John Gunnell: I do not represent an area directly affected by the proposed change and therefore speak from a different perspective. I spent 12 years as chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association and played a part in the economic development of Humberside as part of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. My role was to work together with members and officers of Humberside county council on the acquisition of inward investment.
When the Minister listed where the powers would go and the arrangements that would be made, he omitted to mention economic development. I did not learn whether he had discussed with his hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry their reaction to the proposals and I therefore do not know what arrangements will be made for the maintenance of a service that has proved valuable, for the working of the region as a whole and to Humberside county council.
That matter is important and the debate gives me an opportunity to say that I agree entirely with my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about how this process is being carried forward. The orders are clearly political and intended to give political dividends. In the distant future, an attempt will be made to change the boundaries of York and make life more difficult for the Labour party. In the same way, my hon. Friends were right to say that Humberside is now to be abolished for the same reason as it was created—to give electoral advantage to the Conservative party. We must look at the practical consequences of that.
I was interested to see the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) bounce up and down in his condemnation of Humberside and anxiety to see the word eradicated from the English language. He is in the habit of bouncing up and down like that. I saw him do so when the Kimberly-Clark investment was announced. He and the Prime Minister claimed credit for that investment and he has raised the issue a couple of times at Prime Minister's Questions. As I was chairman of the YHDA at the time and worked with officers of both Humberside and the development association on that inward investment, I know that the hon. Gentleman had nothing to do with it, but Humberside county council had everything to do with it. It must be recognised that Humberside was a successful authority, particularly in the area of economic


development. Recently I met a group of business men in Hull who showed no great enthusiasm for the abolition of the county council. As members of the chamber of commerce, they made it clear to me that they believed that Humberside county council had done some valuable work in the area of economic development.
The work of the YHDA in co-operation with Humberside county council has resulted in some notable inward investment successes in north Yorkshire and Humberside. Kimberly-Clark was originally interested in sites elsewhere in the region. Soon after we met its representatives, they said that they were interested in sites in Yorkshire but not elsewhere in the UK. The company located in Humberside in part because of the success of the county council in preparing and marketing a suitable site. Those successes should be recognised widely.
Citizen is another well-known company name in Humberside. That company located in Scunthorpe from Japan largely because of the work of the development association in partnership with Humberside county council. There have been a number of successes of that sort, and I pay tribute to the single-mindedness of the officers and county council members involved in that work.
I experienced the abolition of the metropolitan authorities, and I think it is disgraceful that the Department of the Environment is now offering those staff who are leaving county councils much worse terms and conditions than were offered to staff when the metropolitan authorities were abolished. That is an insult to the staff who have served local government very well.
What arrangements will the Minister make to accommodate future inward investment? Inward investment is co-ordinated by the Department of Trade and Industry. As a development association which was funded by the DTI, we were encouraged to ensure that we forged effective partnerships with each of the authorities in our region. When the metropolitan authorities were replaced with separate district councils, it made our job more difficult because we had to enter into new partnerships.
Although one may have worked with the district councils in Humberside and north Yorkshire, it is difficult to weld together a partnership which involves a number of authorities. The development association moved from four to 11 authorities, and it will now be asked to encompass an even larger number of authorities. That will certainly make life more difficult.
The Minister failed to take into account the effect of the estuary. It makes a great deal of sense to plan strategically for the Humber as a whole. Whatever the historical or political case—that is the real determinant—may be, there is no good strategic planning case for splitting the estuary geographically. Economic development follows strategic planning, and there is some logic to a Yorkshire and Humberside position. Many of the exporters from west and south Yorkshire use the Humber ports. The county council played its part in developing that port complex which is enormously important to the successful promotion of our area overseas. I ask the Minister: what strategic bodies will consider the Humber estuary as a whole? The south Humber is particularly attractive to industry. There is plenty of space, a relatively clear environment, good road facilities and no great density of traffic. All those factors bring companies to the area and have been part of the marketing strategy of the association.
Are the present responsibilities of the regional development organisations likely to remain the same? I believe that they are most effective as they are at present and disrupting them will certainly hinder the process of inward investment. Those questions have not been answered.
I shall vote against both orders as they are primarily political. The order for Humberside will destroy a council that is working effectively in many ways, particularly in economic development.

Mr. Elliot Morley: It is fair to say that when Humberside county council was set up in 1974, it was based on a flawed idea by a Government who could not resist meddling in local issues and local government without thinking them through properly.
In 1972, I was a student at Hull college of education. I recall being called in by the principal, Dr. Cyril Bibby, who told us all as student leaders that we should oppose that ill-thought-out reorganisation and what it would do to local services. Yet it went through in 1974, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made clear.
Many people have invested a great deal of time, money, energy and commitment to making that authority work. Humberside county council has a great deal of which to be proud in terms of the quality of its services and what it has achieved in inward investment, and that should not be underestimated when discussing an order which brings it to an end.
It should also be recognised that Humberside county council has a great deal of support from various parts of the community. It has not been mentioned tonight that young people who were born in Humberside and have an affinity with Humberside identify with it. The business community did not want change; it felt that it worked very well for business. The voluntary sector did not want change either; the county council had tremendous support from the voluntary sector and local clubs and societies.
Humberside has delivered good, cost-effective, high-quality services, particularly in education, which many people, even its critics, recognise. When the last boundary commission undertook a review of Humberside, it did not recommend that Humberside be broken up. Although it acknowledged that there had been a job to do in trying to develop loyalty to the county, it paid tribute to the work of Humberside county council.
The decision of the Boundary Commission was overturned by the late Nicholas Ridley at the Conservative party local conference in Bridlington. His actions were based on sheer spite and malevolence. He thought that by announcing that he would refer back the recommendation of the Boundary Commission, he would win votes for the Conservative party. His objective was winning control of Humberside county council in the forthcoming local government elections. That started off the entire reorganisation. It was picked up by the then Conservative-controlled Lincolnshire county council, which made a pre-emptive bid to absorb the whole of the south bank into Lincolnshire and from that we were locked into a local government review which culminated in the Local Government Commission led by John Banham and all the problems that came with it.
We shall now have four unitary authorities in the area. I am not saying that there is no case for unitary authorities. There is an argument for unitary authorities; there is an argument for change in local government and my own local district council of Scunthorpe has a proud record of achievements. It has pioneered comprehensive education and sixth-form colleges. It has certainly been a model for industrial regeneration and attracting inward investment. Certainly, my local district council has a great deal of which to be proud and I am sure that it has the expertise and experience to make the new authority work.
Nevertheless, there are a number of serious problems with this order which have not been properly dealt with tonight. The first to which I draw attention concerns representation. The new North Lincolnshire authority is supposed to have 42 councillors to represent the amalgamated Scunthorpe borough council, Glanford borough council and the Isle of Axholme. Those 42 councillors are to replace the 100 or more sitting district and county councillors, but I do not believe that 42 councillors are sufficient adequately to represent the area.
It is also reasonable to suggest that there should be a full review of the re-warding of the new authority. I accept that it cannot be done before the shadow elections in May, but it has been a very long time since there was a re-warding in the area and the problem of re-warding in rural areas in particular needs to be considered.
Incidentally, I am disappointed that the recommendation for the new authority did not involve elections of one third of councillors every year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggested. There has been long-standing support for that notion, especially in Scunthorpe, which has always operated such a system. I personally believe that such elections for local government should be the norm rather than the exception.
I intervened on the Minister in respect of planning. I listened carefully to what he had to say, but he must be aware that the original recommendation of the Local Government Commission, in its report of June 1993 entitled "The Future of Local Government from the Humber to the Wash", was as follows:
There is a high level of inter-dependence between the districts straddling the Humber Estuary and this needs to be reflected in an appropriate planning structure …the Commission accepts that there is a need for structure planning to be maintained at the level of the existing Humberside County area.
What has happened to that recommendation? What sudden change has occurred which means that the planning structure has to be based on a north bank-south bank basis? There is a strong argument for an estuary-wide structure plan, preferably based on the old county council area. It is not clear exactly what guidance the Minister intends to give the new authority to deal with it.
Although it is all right to say that there can be consultation between local authorities, issues of structural planning often lead to major differences of opinion between localities and consultation is not enough. There has to be strong and effective structural planning. The irony is that the argument has been partly accepted in the sense that the police authority area is to be retained on a Humberside basis. The same is true for the fire authority area, so I do not understand why the structural planning

area is not to be retained, as recommended in the original report. The Minister should pay extra attention to that point.
Let us consider the difficulties involved in the transfer of services, especially specialist services that are delivered on a county-wide basis. The years of smooth and effective co-operation between schools and institutions are to be swept away. That is a matter of great concern to the National Union of Teachers and other teaching unions and to local government unions such as the GMB.
As has already been said, the transfer arrangements for the staff are also entirely unsatisfactory. It is unfair that, in previous local government reorganisations in the metropolitan areas, staff were given far more generous redundancy packages and transfer arrangements than are being proposed for Humberside. It is also unreasonable to treat local government staff far worse than civil servants.
I deal now with Goole, which certainly seems to get around in terms of being transferred from area to area—it is clearly a cosmopolitan kind of place. I would welcome Goole into the proposed new North Lincolnshire area. Clearly, it is a matter for the people of Goole to decide, but the Minister should take into account the parliamentary boundary of the new Brigg and Goole seat which will encompass Goole. The health authority is currently called the Goole and Scunthorpe health authority, so they are linked in that respect, too; the education division is based on Scunthorpe and Goole; Goole was in the Humberside police authority; and the Isle of Axholme is in the Goole travel-to-work area. So I think that there is a strong case to be made for transferring Goole to North Lincolnshire, if that is what the people of Goole want. I am sure that they will make their views known on that.
If the order goes through tonight, I want to see all that has been good and successful in Humberside transferred to the new authorities, particularly the North Lincolnshire authority. I must emphasise that there has been much support for Humberside. There is not unanimous opposition to Humberside. Ironically, the strongest pockets of support, as measured by letters and opinion polls, are on the south bank. The reason why there is strong support for Humberside, both at its creation and at the present time, is that people on the south bank remember what a bad deal they got from the old parochial and mean-minded Conservative-controlled Lindsey county council.
That is why I believe that if people want to maintain high-quality services—all that is good about Humberside—they cannot do it through any kind of agreement. The only guarantee for that is a Labour victory in the forthcoming shadow elections.

Mr. Dobson: With the leave of the House. There has been a good debate about the past of Humberside and the future of unitary authorities, which is to be welcomed. It reflected a great deal of local knowledge, and clearly there were divisions of opinion, but I remind the Minister that, unless I misunderstood the speech of the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), there was not a single speech in the House in favour of the extension of the boundaries of York—to what is preposterously referred to as Greater York. That reflects the views of all the local authorities and Members of Parliament in the area, of whatever


political complexion, and clearly represents the views of the bulk of the people living outside York in the outer ring beyond the ring road and, in some cases, well within the ring road.
On the standard that the Government have laid down for themselves in the past—that, for any proposition to go through, it must he popular with local people so that the council will command their support—the proposition fails in relation to Greater York. It is equally obvious that all those who seek election, and the officers of the local authorities who will be the products of that, will do their best, but in the circumstances we should be giving them better boundaries within which to do their best, and we should wish them well in their task.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: With the leave of the House. I confirm what I said to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who asked me earlier about the sheriff. He was expressing some doubt as to whether my first answer was correct. I can confirm that that is the case.
When the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that we should maintain what is best and pass it on to the new authorities, he spoke for the whole House. Indeed, that was enhanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who said that he wanted the new authorities to do better than the outgoing authorities. Whether we think that it is one or the other, I am sure that the consensus is that we want to see local government providing good, cost-effective services and being responsive to the people of the area.
That apart, the debate has revealed that local government reform divides all parties. That is clearly true on the Conservative Benches, from the speeches of my hon. Friends about the extension of the city of York; but it is just as true of Labour Members, and we heard the views of the Jacobins, from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Great Grimsby, who wanted to sweep away the authority which they thought should never have been created in the first place and which was a mistake; of the Dantonites, who wanted unitary authorities, but did not quite want them on the present boundaries; of the remnants of the ancien regime, represented by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell); and of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, who saw merit in what Humberside county council had done.
It is almost impossible to understand how the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) can come to the House and say that he is in favour of extending the boundaries of Bristol, even though the commission did not recommend it, and that he wanted to extend them at the behest of the people of Bristol, but not with any regard to the people living outside the city. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North came along with exactly the same proposition about the boundaries of the city of Kingston upon Hull, saying that people who take advantage of the services in that area, who use the libraries, the schools, the leisure facilities and so on, should be within the city of Kingston upon Hull, but that somehow that argument could not apply to the city of York.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman applies that argument to York, but not to the other places involved. It is he who is being inconsistent.

Mr. Jones: I am applying the test of what the commission recommended. Opposition Members would kick up a pretty row if the Government extended or contracted boundaries against the commission's recommendation: they would soon say that we were up to some political shenanigans.
The city of York has dominated the debate. The solution recommended by a number of Opposition Members is what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) described as the worst of all possible worlds: the ring road. The ring road not only breaches the boundaries of parishes, but leaves outside it some of the parishes that are most urban and most dependent on the city of York. Anyone who looked at a map of the city, or visited it, would see a continuous built-up area that extends beyond the ring road in a number of directions. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras illustrated that with respect to Fulford, saying that someone in Fulford would not realise that he was anywhere other than York. I think that that is true.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: No. I am trying to reply to a large number of hon. Members, but time will prove the truth of what I have said.
Other hon. Members have rightly said that Goole is a difficult issue. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, for example, presented some of the arguments for it to be linked with the new Glanford and Scunthorpe authority. He probably advanced those arguments to the commission; he certainly presented some of them in a letter a copy of which he kindly sent to the Department. There are links, in that the Isle of Axholme and Goole work together in the Boothferry authority, but there have been links between Goole and the rest of Boothferry under the present Boothferry authority, and it was Boothferry borough council that argued that the two should go together into East Yorkshire.
There are arguments for Goole to he linked with Selby and the other river towns in part of what was the West Riding. It is also argued that it has links with the metropolitan borough of Doncaster to the south. I think that the only way of achieving a solution is for the commission to examine the matter specifically, consulting the people of Goole and presenting the Government with a recommendation. We want that to be done speedily. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), who raised the point, that we shall ask the commission to consider the issue as quickly as possible: that is essential to the local authority's planning procedures, and for staff to know where they are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale raised the problems of the rump Ryedale, as it might be called. Even as a rump, Ryedale is not the smallest of non-metropolitan districts. I have every confidence that the leadership of the authority will do a very good job in running the remainder of Ryedale, but my hon. Friend raised a valid point when he pointed out that only 23 councillors were left. As I said in my opening speech, we think that that problem also should be resolved.
On Friday 17 February, the Yorkshire Evening Press summarised the issue of York. I think that it hit the nail on the head. It said:
The danger is that the self evident commonsense of having one authority running the affairs of York is lost in the melee of councillors and MPs who are too busy jumping on a bandwagon of their own making to take a clear-sighted view of the situation. Anybody would think that the absurdity of the existing set up is worth preserving, and absurd it is that people who live within two miles of the Minster should find themselves in Harrogate borough or Ryedale district or ruled over from Selby, and that all of them should have their overlords in a North Allerton based county council.
That newspaper hit the nail on the head. That is why I commend both orders to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 243.

Division No. 90]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Atkins, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Booth, Hartley
Elletson, Harold


Boswel, Tim
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright Sir Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fishbum, Dudley


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forman, Nigel


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas


Carlisle. John (Luton North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Gallie, Phil


Cash, William
Gardiner, Sr George


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
GarelJones, Rt Hon Tristan


Chapman, Sydney
Garnier, Edward


Churchill, Mr
Gillan, Cheryl


Clappison, James
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Coe, Sebastian
Gorst Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)


Congdon, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)





Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hague, William
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkstey, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Page, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sr John (Ravensboume)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thomason, Roy


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)






Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Watts, John


Thurnham, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wiggjn, Sir Jerry


Twinn, Dr Ian
Willetts, David


Vaughan Sir Gerard
Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wolfson.Mark


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Timothy Wood and 


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Simon Burns.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ainger, Nick
Dafis, Cynog


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Graham
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Austin-Walker, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Barnes, Harry
Denham, John


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Bayley, Hugh
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Donohoe, Brian H


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, Andrew F
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Berry, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blunkett, David
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foulkes, George


Burden, Richard
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Callaghan, Jim
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Garrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, D N
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Dr Norman A


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Godsiff, Roger


Chidgey, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Mildred


Church, Judith
Graham, Thomas


Clapham, Michael
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gunnell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hain, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Harvey, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Corston.Jean
Heppell.John


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Cummings, John
Hodge, Margaret


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoey. Kate


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)





Home, Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Hara, Edward


Hutton,John
Olner, Bill


Illsley, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Ingram, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Patchett, Terry


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pendry, Tom


Jamieson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Rooney, Terry


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'bury)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Spellar, John


Macdonald, Calum
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McFall, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Strang, Dr. Gavin



Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McMaster, Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McNamara, Kevin
Timms, Stephen


MacShane, Denis
Tipping, Paddy


McWilliam, John
Touhig, Don


Maddock, Diana
Turner, Dennis


Mahon, Alice
Tyler, Paul


Marek,Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wallace, James


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marttlew, Eric
Watson, Mike


Maxton, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Meale, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wilson, Brian


Milburn, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Miller, Andrew
Worthington, Tony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wray, Jimmy


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wright, Dr Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Noes:


Morley, Elliot
Ms Estelle Morris and 


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Mr. Stephen Byers.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Humberside (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 212.

Division No. 91]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ancram, Michael
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Elletson, Harold


Baldry.Tony
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Evennett, David


Bellingham, Henry
Faber, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishbum, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bowis, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Fry, Sir Peter


Bright Sir Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gallie, Phil


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butcher, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butlerfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Gorst, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grylls, Sir Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chidgey, David
Hague, William


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Coe, Sebastian
Hannam, Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Harvey, Nick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nick


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawksley, Warren


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hayes, Jerry


Couchman, James
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hendry, Charles


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence





Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Horam, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Norris, Steve


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ottaway, Richard


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Page, Richard


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Paice, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Jack, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Pickles, Eric


Jenkin, Bernard
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jones, Gwitym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rendel, David


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Richards, Rod


Key, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robathan, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, Sir David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Speed, Sir Keith


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


Maclennan, Robert
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maddock, Diana
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stephen, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan


Marland, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thurnharn, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tyler, Paul






Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Whittingdale, John


Viggers, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Walden, George
Willetts, David


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wilshire, David


Wallace, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Whitney, Ray
 Mr. Simon Burns.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dixon, Don


Ainger, Nick
Dobson, Frank


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohoe, Brian H


Allen, Graham
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Austin-Walker, John
Eastham, Ken


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Battle, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bayley, Hugh
Fatchett, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, Andrew F
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Fraser, John


Berry, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Galbraith, Sam


Blunkett, David
Gapes, Mike


Boyes, Roland
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gerrard, Neil


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godsiff, Roger


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gunnel, John


Church, Judith
Hain, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monkfands W)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ann
Hodge, Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Dafyeil, Tam
Jamieson, David


Daring, Alistair
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald





Keen, Alan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry
Purchase, Ken


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Raynsford, Nick


Litherland, Robert
Reid, Dr John


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretfbrd)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McFal, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Ruddock, Joan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Clare


McMaster, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Alice
Soley, Clive


Marek, DrJohn
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spellar, John


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Miller, Andrew
Timms, Stephen


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tipping, Paddy


Mconie, Dr Lewis
Touhig, Don


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Watson, Mike


Mudie, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


O'Hara, Edward
Wise, Audrey


Olner, Bill
Worthington, Tony


O'Neill, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wright, Dr Tony


Patchett Terry



Pendry, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Pickthall, Colin
Ms Estelle Morris and 


Pike, Peter L
Mr. Stephen Byers.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Points of Order

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that earlier today I asked a question about a woman called Sita Kamara whom the Home Office is trying to remove from Britain. I have since learnt that, despite my raising the matter here this afternoon and receiving a letter from the Home Office this evening, the Home Secretary intends to remove her from Britain at 7 o'clock tomorrow morning, thus denying Members of Parliament an opportunity to make representations and apparently denying her access to a special medical examination by the Medical Campaign for the Victims of Torture.
I am deeply concerned about that matter, and I look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to advise me as to how best the House could have an opportunity to question the Home Office on what I believe to be a totally unfair and irrational act against a deeply disturbed young woman who has been on hunger strike and in prison since she arrived in this country to seek asylum from the Ivory Coast. I believe the matter to be urgent and, while I apologise for raising it now, clearly there are no other opportunities for me to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a matter on which the Chair can rule at all. Treasury Bench Members are here, however, and they will have heard the hon. Gentleman's plea.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this a different issue?

Mr. Cohen: It is related—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Either it is or it is not.

Mr. Cohen: It is on the same issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I have ruled on it. [Interruption.] I am most grateful.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not accept it.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7854/94, relating to procedures for the possible budgetisation of the European Development Fund, and supports the Government's view that, in order to maintain maximum control over the United Kingdom's level of contribution to the EDF, Her Majesty's Government should continue to oppose its budgetisation.—[Mr. Wells.]

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question agreed to.

Wiltshire Police Force

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. David Faber: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the issue of the Wiltshire police force and the funding that has been made available to that force this year.
The motto of the Wiltshire police force is "Primus et Optimus". It is the oldest police force in the country and, we believe, very much the best. It is one of the smallest police forces and has one of the highest clear-up rates in the United Kingdom.
The financial settlement that we received this year must be seen against the background of substantial increases in police numbers in recent years and the very welcome reduction in the recorded rate of crime, which we have witnessed in Wiltshire during the past year.
In a recent parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), whom I am delighted to see in his place, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, acknowledged that between 1979 and 1993 the total strength of the Wiltshire police force increased by about 40.1 per cent.—well above the average population growth in the county at the time. The number of officers increased by about 26.5 per cent. and the number of civilians by a staggering 96.3 per cent. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the chief constable and to all his staff—police officers and civilians—in the Wiltshire force.
This year, the settlement has come against a background of scare stories and scaremongering from the local Opposition parties, who at one stage threatened a 9 per cent. cash cut in Wiltshire's cash funding for this year. Statements such as "outrageous" and "breathtaking" appeared in the local press. In fact, if the new Wiltshire police authority spends up to its capping limit this year, as it always did under the county council police authority, we shall see a real-terms increase in funding for the Wiltshire police force this year of about 2.5 per cent. While I acknowledge that that is a disappointing increase compared with that for many other counties, it is one within which the local force should be well able to work.
I must draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to one or two issues relating to the funding formula. The figures given by the old police authority, under Wiltshire county council control, at the beginning of the year—figures that were given to the Department of the Environment—amounted to a base budget for this year of about £57.8 million. The figure that the chief constable gave to the other Members of Parliament representing the county represented a base budget of about £58.76 million—a discrepancy of almost £1 million.
I spent several weeks trying to reconcile the difference between the two figures and I am most grateful to officials at the Home Office and the Department of the Environment for the considerable time and effort that they put into attempting to reconcile the figures. They were eventually explained to me, by the treasurer of the new police authority, as representing savings that have been rolled over from the previous year into the 1994–95 budget.
That begs three questions. First, why is it, when such crucial figures are being put to central Government and when local Members of Parliament are being lobbied, that the old police authority and the police force, as represented by the chief constable, are unable to agree on the correct level of funding and on the correct base budget for the year? Secondly, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State would confirm that such rolled-over savings should not be included in the base budget as I have been unable to confirm that so far. Thirdly, if such rolled-over savings are not to be included in the base budget, why is that not so in this case? Is it not fair that a base budget should be based on spending arising out of financial prudence from the previous year? We have had considerable confusion in Wiltshire in the past few months about our capping limit, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could make a few comments to try to clear some of the confusion.
I shall dwell for a moment on the main problems of the new funding formula as they affect Wiltshire and, indeed, as I believe that they affect several other counties which have suffered under that formula. In Wiltshire we have undoubtedly been penalised as regards pension payments for this year, and we envisage difficulties this year in funding those pension payments.
Allowance has been made in the 1994–95 budget to fund pension payments for officers eligible to retire during this financial year. However, it is likely that the pension expenditure allowed under the new formula will not be enough, given the reality of expected retirements for the year 1995–96. Police forces as a whole usually consider it prudent to allow full provision for those who may be eligible to retire, but in 1995–96 we may well be confronted with additional problems in Wiltshire.
For a variety of reasons, many of the officers who were due to retire before 31 March are likely to stay on until September 1995. As a result, about £1.6 million which would have been spent on payments for the 1994–95 year will not be spent. In previous years, under the old formula, 49 per cent. of those payments could have been rolled over into the following year, but unfortunately that is not permitted under the new formula.
I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State would consider the issue of pensions, and specifically if he would inquire whether a case can be made for a capping disregard to allow for such funds to be rolled over to allow some easing on pension payments in the current year.
The second problem that the formula has thrown up for us is that of the rural nature of the county which is spread out over a great area, with the exception of Swindon which is the large town in the county. It appears that those of us who live in rural areas—and police forces which operate in such areas—experience a certain amount of discrimination under the funding formula.
I believe that the standard spending assessment for education, which the Department of the Environment controls, includes some factor to take account of rural sparsity. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been inquiring into that and I wonder whether he has made any progress in considering the issues for the funding formula in the coming year.

Mr. Robert Key: I too have brought pressure to bear on our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, on the question of sparsity. It is a significant


issue, not only in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), but in the Devizes constituency next door—and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is in his place. Has the Minister received any response at the Home Office about that sparsity factor? I know that the Department of the Environment revises the statistical basis of its standard spending assessment calculation every year. That issue should surely be tackled for the Wiltshire police.

Mr. Faber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that that is the case. My hon. Friend the Minister, in a letter to colleagues just before the funding debate a few weeks ago, highlighted the pensions issue and the rural sparsity factor and said that he would take that into consideration. I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us a few words of wisdom about the extent to which that review is progressing and whether he is able to give us any further advice this evening.
We now have a funding shortfall to fill. According to the chief constable, who has now published a list of possible cuts within the Wiltshire police force, it may be as much as £3 million.
As my hon. Friends in the county have pointed out on previous occasions, we hope that there will be no need for a reduction in police strength. The new police authority and the chief constable may be able to make savings, and I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister about one or two of those. I understand that this year Wiltshire will receive £500,000, which it must spend in the current financial year on common police services such as the national police computer but that under the funding formula for next year that will not be the case. I am interested to know whether that money will revert to Wiltshire's funding and be additional money that the chief constable will be able to spend.
My hon. Friend the Minister and the chief constable will not want to talk at great length about security matters, but Wiltshire has way above the normal number of VIPs to protect and the county has a large and active special protection force. If the peace process in Northern Ireland continues to be successful and to reap the peace dividend, we hope that officers withdrawn from special protection duties will be able to boost the normal manpower available to the Wiltshire police force. Whether the budget is spent in hard cash or on numbers of police officers, I hope that it will revert to the Wiltshire police force and will not be subsumed into the national budget.
In the few minutes left to me, I shall strike a slightly discordant note. Like one or two of my hon. Friends, I have received many representations recently, both by post and at my surgeries, about the major concern caused by local press reports suggesting that the new police authority set up under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 may plan to spend as much as £200,000 on acquiring new premises for the police authority to meet in, possibly in Devizes close to the Wiltshire police headquarters. When I first heard that, I was surprised. Having done some research, I think that I have managed to understand where the various grants are available from and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his written replies to me in recent weeks on that matter.
I understand that two grants are available to new police authorities and police forces under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act to help set up the new police authorities. One is for £97,500, which is specifically for the use of the police authorities. In a letter sent to the chief constable of Wiltshire police on 8 July 1994, the payment of that initial grant is decreed as being to cover
costs such as selection panel expenses, members' allowances, the appointment of a clerk and treasurer, accommodation and anything else directly attributable to the parallel running of two police authorities.
In addition, an initial grant will be made available to the police force. Again as a result of a parliamentary reply from my hon. Friend the Minister, I understand that in the case of Wiltshire that grant will be some £400,000. The chief constable of Wiltshire, in a letter of 26 August 1994, applied for a grant of £220,000 to finance a new police headquarters in Devizes under the £400,000 grant. The submission was subsequently changed and a detailed claim was submitted by the clerk of the new Wiltshire police authority on 15 December 1994 for £180,000 for the new police authority headquarters.
Either way, I consider that those sums are unnecessary and a waste of public funds. They fall short for two reasons. First, why does a new police authority with a few members, which has already said that it plans to meet in town and village halls around the county, need to spend £200,000 on premises in which to meet when it already has facilities available to it in Trowbridge, where the old police authority has been meeting since time immemorial, for the sum of some £7,000 or £8,000 a year in rent? Even if the new police authority were to rent new buildings, I understand that that would cost £25,000 more than the rental on its existing accommodation at county hall. That is possibly the cost of one new police constable on the beat. At a time of cuts, that seems a very poor saving.
Secondly, I believe that an application of that type falls outside the spirit of the grant. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that point. I understand that the Wiltshire police force applied for the grant originally. However, circumstances changed and the new Wiltshire police authority subsequently applied for the grant. In a letter of 31 January which was sent to the clerk of the Wiltshire shadow police authority, one of my hon. Friend's officials said:
However, I note that the accommodation bid of £180,000 is now intended for the new police authority. Wiltshire's original letter of 26 August 1994 suggested that this accommodation was for the use of the police force …While it is for the police authority to decide how to spend its money, claims for initial financing grant for police force use will not be verified where they relate to expenditure incurred only for police authority use". 
Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the grant will not be given to the new police authority for its new premises? I have received information in the past couple of days from a reliable source that it is possible that the grant application will revert to the Wiltshire police force. I understand that premises have already been found close to the police headquarters on the outskirts of town in a new business park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. It is possible that the new police force will move into those premises and will be followed closely by the police authority.
At the very best, I believe that such an application is outside the spirit of the grant, and at the very worst—I hesitate to say it—I believe that the police authority is using underhand tactics to gain expensive new accommodation. I


hope that my hon. Friend will consider carefully the points that I have raised. I hope that he will consider whether the grant should be paid and whether it is viable expenditure by the new Wiltshire police authority.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I have listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), which I take very seriously indeed. I am also grateful for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). My hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is in his place, and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) have made representations to me outside the Chamber about policing in Wiltshire. I am glad that they are in the Chamber tonight to hear my remarks.
The key purpose of the programme of reforms that we are implementing is to ensure a positive future for policing. I am very encouraged by recent figures which show crime on the retreat, and we must maintain and improve the conditions to take that process further.
Providing sufficient funding for the police service and distributing it fairly are rightly matters of prime concern. That is particulariy true at a time when we are introducing important changes to the system for the next financial year. Moving to the application of a new, objective formula for the allocation of resources between police authorities has been a complicated business. I expected to receive a large number of queries and I have not been disappointed. I will shortly he responding to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury in which he passed on representations from the chief constable of Wiltshire.
The Wiltshire constabulary is an excellent example of the kind of strong local force that is the backbone of British policing. It is committed to quality and to the service of a wide range of local communities. While it is not a large force, it has a real sense of identity with the people of the county and that is the basis of the partnership which we see as an essential element in preventing and dealing with crime. A well-developed system of consultative groups allows for regular contact between officers and those whom they serve and there are also strong links with crime prevention panels. There are 4,116 neighbourhood watch schemes in Wiltshire covering more than 62,000 households.
The Wiltshire force is also forward-looking, with a strong record in technical development and effective liaison with other agencies, such as the Crown Prosecution Service. Most important of all, the force is playing a vital part in getting crime rates down. In the 12 months to June 1994—the latest period for which we have figures—recorded crime fell by 5 per cent. in England and Wales, but Wiltshire beat that figure with a fall of 9 per cent. Burglaries and vehicle crimes in the county fell by 7 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively. Wiltshire's clear-up rate is also very good at 35 per cent, compared with a national average of 25 per cent.
Basic support in money terms for the Wiltshire force increases by 0.4 per cent. in 1995–96, and I understand that the budget for that financial year has now been set at £59.145 million. The uplift may seem modest, but we need to delve a little deeper to get a more accurate view of the position and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury for delving deeper.
First, Wiltshire certainly gets a fair share of resources under the formula as it currently stands. The relative demand for policing is assessed as higher in many other areas and that is not altogether surprising. Thankfully, Wiltshire is not a rabid hotbed of crime. While a number of English county forces historically spend less on policing, none recorded fewer offences than Wiltshire in the most recent year for which figures are available.
To be blunt, we have to recognise that any redistributive formula will produce gains and losses in relative terms. I am confident that while the formula will inevitably need further development to take into account such factors as rural sparsity, pensions and so on, it is working as fairly as possible, but some people will inevitably be disappointed with its local effects.
Wiltshire says that it is doing badly under the formula compared with 1994–95, but let us look at the background to the funding for 1994–95. It was based on an establishment which had increased by nearly 16 per cent. since 1979, almost double the national increase. As a Government, we are proud that Wiltshire had that dramatic increase in establishment. Over the same period, strength has grown by 255, or more than 25 per cent. compared with a national increase of 14 per cent., so between 1979 and 1995, total expenditure on policing in Wiltshire grew by nearly 154 per cent. in real terms, as against the national increase of 92 per cent. Therefore, any claim for further substantial additions to funding should be seen in the context of those generous increases over a period of 15 years.
The chief constable recently referred to a budget now standing at £60.677 million for 1994–95. Of course, the basic allocation for 1995–96 looks low in comparison, but the chief constable's figure includes significant savings from the 1993–94 budget rolled over with the county council's agreement. I understand that many of those savings related to unspent pensions provisions and that there is likely to be another underspend in that category in 1994–95. If there is, the county council may be prepared to make arrangements for the new police authority to have access to some of that money for 1995–96. The budget may then look distinctly healthier.
Pensions are a problem for police funding, but they can also distort proper comparisons between year-on-year budgets. Stated budget requirements may be inflated by making financial provision for all officers eligible to retire in a particular year. In practice, experience shows that much of that provision will often be left unspent.
My hon. Friend commented on the effect of capping on the Wiltshire police in 1995–96. As hon. Members know, capping is designed to protect council tax payers from the burden of supporting excessive increases in local authority spending. Base budgets for capping purposes and spending caps are a measure of the burden which has been or will be placed on local taxpayers. The final figures, therefore, exclude any expenditure which has been or will be funded by drawing on reserves or by income generated from charging for services. In the case of Wiltshire police authority, the 1994–95 base budget was reduced to reflect the county council's income from fees for registering births, marriages and deaths.
The Wiltshire police argued, understandably, that as they had no involvement with this work and saw none of the income it generated their base budget should be


reduced. The police base budget was correspondingly increased by some £26,000 from £57.82 million to £57.85 million.
My hon. Friend mentioned the concern in Wiltshire that an underspend in 1994–95 could not be carried forward into 1995–96 and benefit the police in that year because it would be included in the capping limit rather than being added to it. That is not the case. The underspend would be carried forward this year by putting money into reserves and then drawing on those reserves next year. Spending from reserves is entirely separate from capping because it does not impact on council tax payers whose interests capping is designed to protect. The spending from reserves in 1995–96 could, therefore, be used to finance additional expenditure above the capping limit.
My hon. Friend said that there was a suggestion that some money allocated for the police service might be used by the police authority for accommodation. I cannot comment on any strategy that a police authority might develop to circumvent the rules for the allocation of initial financing grant for police force use, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the expenditure against which initial financing grants will be paid will be subsequently scrutinised by district auditors who will be countersigning the grant claim form that will be required to be submitted by 31 December this year. Grant that has not been properly used will be reclaimed—it is as simple as that. At that stage, such money could not be re-allocated to another police authority.

Mr. Faber: I have been listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has been saying. The fact remains that the new Wiltshire police authority is under the impression that the grant has been approved. Indeed, in a letter that it sent to me today, it is clear that it believes that the £400,000 has been approved and, within that, the £180,000 for a new police authority headquarters at Devizes. Can my hon. Friend say whether that grant has been approved, or whether his officials are still considering it?

Mr. Maclean: I should like to respond in detail, but I was not aware of that letter. I should need to check it carefully before responding. I can say only that we believe that the law is quite clear. I am sure that no police authority would seek to act in a way that would get round the spirit of the law and risk the district auditor's not countersigning the grant claim form. Not only would the police authority not get access to the money, but the police service would not get access to the resources for which I am sure everyone is fighting. I should like to see the details of what the authority is claiming, and I should then be delighted to respond in writing to my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends.
I am confident that we can do more in Wiltshire and elsewhere to increase the number of officers on the beat where they can reassure the law-abiding public and deter potential offenders. The whole question of funding and the arguments about formulae arise because people want the maximum police effectiveness for the large amounts of money that are, rightly, spent on the police service. The Government's record speaks for itself. There has been an increase of 16,000 police officers since 1979, and we shall improve the position further from April by removing the central controls on numbers in each force. Chief

constables on the ground—not the Government and Whitehall—will decide force priorities and they will be able to choose freely between additional police officers, civilians, equipment or any other form of expenditure.
We shall keep up the pressure on police forces to put civilians into jobs that do not require police officers' powers, skills or expensive training. Since 1983, that process has helped us return more than 7,000 officers to front-line duties. We have been able to do that because, in addition to the 16,000 bobbies, we have recruited 16,000 civilians to take over the typewriters and release officers for front-line duties. Wiltshire has a very good record on civilianisation, but there are still a number of posts that civilians could do and should take over. That is the opinion of HM inspectorate of constabulary.
Having mentioned cash limiting of the police grant, I shall say a little more about the key change to the funding system. When linked to the introduction of free-standing police authorities, it will ensure that each force gets a full and clearly defined share of the resources available. Under the new system county councils will not be able to divert resources to other services as some—in fact, the majority, I believe, last year—have done in the past. Nor will additional spending attract automatic grant that will have to be financed from national taxation. The new system of formula funding will depend vitally on the effectiveness of the arrangements for distributing resources, and that is where the formula comes in.
The new formula fills the gap that existed under the old system and it corrects those anomalies. It provides a much more direct link between funding and policing needs. The key factor driving it is population, with particular social and demographic factors playing a small but significant part. Some allowance is made for roads and motorways and the number of officers on ports and protection duties. Around 9 per cent. of the formula is linked to predicted pensions expenditure. Although moving to an improved basis for distribution is all very well, I can assure my hon. Friends that we realise that there cannot be too much change all at once.
Nor do we imagine that we have got everything right the first time. We will continue to review and develop the formula this year and will do so in consultation with the police and local authority representatives. One focus of that work will be the way in which we allow for the special problems of policing rural areas in counties such as Wiltshire. No one will be happier than me, as a Member representing another rural county, if the police service comes to us with very good reasons and arguments about building in a sparsity factor. So far, we have not had arguments that would justify my making that change. I cannot depend on gut instinct, although I believe that the policing of rural areas is bound to have a greater cost than the policing of some urban areas.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: Very quickly.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for giving way.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.